Ask your Sheriff, politely of course, if he could get a law passed banning all AW, high cap mags, unregistered sales. etc., all of these things he is so hot on, if these new laws were done deals, at what point could he lay off half or more of his deputies? He certainly wouldn't need them any more..there are laws that have been passed prohibiting all the things he was against. I would also ask him if he considers protecting the individuals in his county as one of the jobs his department is charged with. The I would follow up with, If not you, then who?
UPDATED! Going to be a panelist at a "Gun Control Forum" tomorrow night
- Thread starter WC145
- Start date
First...I applaude you for this undertaking.
Second....and please don't take this the wrong way but... Ammendment II of the Constitution of the United States of America is no more subject to a "Forum" than any other of the Ammendments included in the Bill of Rights. They are "rights" not subject to negotiation.
Three...Take a copy of the Constitution of the United States with you and ask them what other pages they would like to shred.
Four...Sorry, I take this personally.
JJEH
Member
Good luck and try to have fun 
Grayfox
US Veteran
Wear body armor.
Step N. Mud
Member
Would like to hear how it turns out.
Here's maybe some info to pass along to those that have no idea whats on the existing ATF form 4473 and the 'WARNING' paragraph at the top of the form. Seems like there are already laws against buying guns illegally and more gun laws would just make it harder for law abiding folks to comply to. Do criminals or the mentally deranged give a rats behind about the current laws.
A copy of the 4473;
ATF Form 4473, July 2005 revision
Here's maybe some info to pass along to those that have no idea whats on the existing ATF form 4473 and the 'WARNING' paragraph at the top of the form. Seems like there are already laws against buying guns illegally and more gun laws would just make it harder for law abiding folks to comply to. Do criminals or the mentally deranged give a rats behind about the current laws.
A copy of the 4473;
ATF Form 4473, July 2005 revision
The use of "assault rifle" is incorrect They are not full auto. Anything used to assault someone is a assault weapon.
It makes not difference on what they call them or how many they ban, it's simplistic yes but it's the old if guns are outlawed , only blah blah, Criminals and crazy people do not follow the laws, any of them.
The new rifles are MSP Modern Sporting rifles. Take a picture of a Ruger Mini 14. The Tactical version is bad because it has a Flash hider which can be unscrewed and a 20 round mag. Take a regular Mini 14 with a 5 round mag and it is OK.
This ugly Mossberg is a banned assault rifle due to the stock and flash hider. But the regular 30-30 is OK
Mossberg & Sons | 41026
My big beef is why can the Politicians, and "VIP"s of this Country have body guards and arm themselves. We voted for them but we or our children are not worth protecting? Meaning they are more important than us? The Presidents kids not only have Secret Service protection but the private school they go to hired more security. Ask them to give up their security.
The worst School massacre occurred in Bath Michigan in 1927
killing 38 children and 6 adults. Crazy employee used dynamite.
It makes not difference on what they call them or how many they ban, it's simplistic yes but it's the old if guns are outlawed , only blah blah, Criminals and crazy people do not follow the laws, any of them.
The new rifles are MSP Modern Sporting rifles. Take a picture of a Ruger Mini 14. The Tactical version is bad because it has a Flash hider which can be unscrewed and a 20 round mag. Take a regular Mini 14 with a 5 round mag and it is OK.
This ugly Mossberg is a banned assault rifle due to the stock and flash hider. But the regular 30-30 is OK
Mossberg & Sons | 41026
My big beef is why can the Politicians, and "VIP"s of this Country have body guards and arm themselves. We voted for them but we or our children are not worth protecting? Meaning they are more important than us? The Presidents kids not only have Secret Service protection but the private school they go to hired more security. Ask them to give up their security.
The worst School massacre occurred in Bath Michigan in 1927
killing 38 children and 6 adults. Crazy employee used dynamite.
explorer13421
Member
wc145, first, thank you for taking the time to take part in the forum, in front of a bunch of people, many of whom will start off being very hostile. Take heart, you are following in the footsteps of a long line of patriots who came before you.
Lots of good ideas so far.
Some one will float the argument that the Second Amendment states a collective right, a right of the states to have or to regulate militia. This is easily refuted. The Supreme Court has decided it is an INDIVIDUAL right, the same as the rights covered in the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments. Most people will not read the Supreme Court decisions, so just refer them to the Constitution. Clauses 15 and 16 of section 8 of Article I give the Congress the power to call forth the militia for federal purposes; and to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and to govern such part of the militia as called to federal service, "reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Article II, section 2 (1) provides that the President is the Commander in Chief of militia called to federal service. The Second Amendment does not change or limit the power given to the Congress or diminish the authority of the President. It does recognize a right OF THE PEOPLE that is not to be infringed.
I am in New York State. We have a Governor who does not trust the law abiding citizens of New York State with respect to firearms. Why does he think we trust him.
I have studied gun control laws since the federal gun control act of 1968. They do not seem to have much impact on gun crime, and primarily seem intended to make it more difficult and expensive for law-abiding citizens to own guns. Why would the political class want to do that? Because all through time the political class has sought to disarm the people.
Gun control is not about safety. In 2011 5 people were murdered with rifles in New York State, and no one knows if ANY of the rifles used were semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. Yet Governor Cuomo is making an estimated hundreds of thousands of owners of such rifles jump through all sorts of hoops, with no showing that doing so will make any one safer. Holders of pistol permits in New York State exceedingly rarely are involved in any kind of crime, much less a gun crime, and historically those permits could be revoked by ant judge at any time for any reason. Governor Cuomo has changed what was a lifetime pistol permit to one that must be renewed every five years, again with no factual basis or even an argument that will make people safer from pistol permit owners who rarely commit crimes.
The Founding Fathers rebelled against a king, the British Sovereign. They instituted a new form of government that was premised on the people being the source of sovereignty, and they spread out powers between the state and federal government and within each level of government, setting up checks and balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. All of which was premised upon an armed populace that could do what was discussed in the Declaration of Independence, that is, to secure the unalienable rights including Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,..."
It is not about saving lives. If it was flu shots would be mandated for everyone because the flu kills 7 or 8 time as many people per year as are murdered with guns. There are many other causes of death that kill far more people than are killed intentionally or accidentally with firearms. Compare the number of children who drown in backyard swimming pools to those killed in firearms accidents, for example. Don't forget about drunk driving, which is a criminal use of a motor vehicle and kills more people each year than are murdered with guns.
Speaking of cars, why no regulate guns like cars. Well, regulation of cars, airline industry, food safety standards and other similar things can be shown to actually improve safety, but gun control can not. The reason is that the vast, overwhelmingly majority of crimes with guns are committed by people with lengthy and extensive criminal records who do not follow the rules.
Good luck, wc145, an American Patriot.
Lots of good ideas so far.
Some one will float the argument that the Second Amendment states a collective right, a right of the states to have or to regulate militia. This is easily refuted. The Supreme Court has decided it is an INDIVIDUAL right, the same as the rights covered in the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments. Most people will not read the Supreme Court decisions, so just refer them to the Constitution. Clauses 15 and 16 of section 8 of Article I give the Congress the power to call forth the militia for federal purposes; and to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and to govern such part of the militia as called to federal service, "reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Article II, section 2 (1) provides that the President is the Commander in Chief of militia called to federal service. The Second Amendment does not change or limit the power given to the Congress or diminish the authority of the President. It does recognize a right OF THE PEOPLE that is not to be infringed.
I am in New York State. We have a Governor who does not trust the law abiding citizens of New York State with respect to firearms. Why does he think we trust him.
I have studied gun control laws since the federal gun control act of 1968. They do not seem to have much impact on gun crime, and primarily seem intended to make it more difficult and expensive for law-abiding citizens to own guns. Why would the political class want to do that? Because all through time the political class has sought to disarm the people.
Gun control is not about safety. In 2011 5 people were murdered with rifles in New York State, and no one knows if ANY of the rifles used were semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. Yet Governor Cuomo is making an estimated hundreds of thousands of owners of such rifles jump through all sorts of hoops, with no showing that doing so will make any one safer. Holders of pistol permits in New York State exceedingly rarely are involved in any kind of crime, much less a gun crime, and historically those permits could be revoked by ant judge at any time for any reason. Governor Cuomo has changed what was a lifetime pistol permit to one that must be renewed every five years, again with no factual basis or even an argument that will make people safer from pistol permit owners who rarely commit crimes.
The Founding Fathers rebelled against a king, the British Sovereign. They instituted a new form of government that was premised on the people being the source of sovereignty, and they spread out powers between the state and federal government and within each level of government, setting up checks and balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. All of which was premised upon an armed populace that could do what was discussed in the Declaration of Independence, that is, to secure the unalienable rights including Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,..."
It is not about saving lives. If it was flu shots would be mandated for everyone because the flu kills 7 or 8 time as many people per year as are murdered with guns. There are many other causes of death that kill far more people than are killed intentionally or accidentally with firearms. Compare the number of children who drown in backyard swimming pools to those killed in firearms accidents, for example. Don't forget about drunk driving, which is a criminal use of a motor vehicle and kills more people each year than are murdered with guns.
Speaking of cars, why no regulate guns like cars. Well, regulation of cars, airline industry, food safety standards and other similar things can be shown to actually improve safety, but gun control can not. The reason is that the vast, overwhelmingly majority of crimes with guns are committed by people with lengthy and extensive criminal records who do not follow the rules.
Good luck, wc145, an American Patriot.
Here is an essay I wrote some years ago on this topic. I like the approach of saying forget about statistics as they can be manipulated. Just use common sense!:
My belief is that statistics prove that increased civilian firearms ownership decreases crime. Statistics, however, are subject to manipulation. You've got yours and I've got mine, and we'd both probably just reinforce our own views by citing them. So I prefer to try to sway your opinion with commonsense.
Ask yourself this: If a criminal suspects a potential home burglary target has a gun on the premises, is he more or less likely to rob or attack? As you'd expect, interviews with criminals show that he is less likely. This is why home invasions – in the US -- are less likely to occur at night when the owners are at home. Ask yourself if you think a criminal is more or less likely to target a house for robbery if the house has a burglar alarm sign. Or just a "Beware of the dog!" sign. The deterrence principle is the same, with the added reinforcement of the thought that if the intended victim is armed, grievous harm, perhaps death, to the criminal may result.
Is a criminal more or less likely to rob or attack a person on the street if he thinks that person may be armed? Surely you agree that given the choice between attacking a person who might be armed, and one who is almost certainly not, the criminal will choose the latter.
Perhaps you believe that the presence of a gun, either carried by a law-abiding citizen or in his or her home, in and of itself increases the likelihood of violence? Studies have shown this is a fallacy – it is demonstrably false -- but again, consider it from a common sense point of view: Think of yourself, a normal, law-abiding, family-loving, upstanding citizen. Do you honestly think a gun would make you, personally, a more violent person? Do you think you, personally, would ever be careless with a gun? If you answer in the affirmative to either question, of course you should absolutely stay away from guns, but for most citizens, for most gun owners, the opposite is true. We realize that a gun is a weighty responsibility, that its purpose is for defense only, and its very lethality makes us very, very careful. Do you go to sleep driving a car at 65 MPH?
But, you say, accidents happen. Yes, they do, and with automobiles the accident toll is indeed tragically high, but accidental death by firearm is one of the very lowest causes of accidental death. It comes after things like slipping in bathtubs and drowning in swimming pools. Then again, your real concern is probably the murder and mayhem of deliberate gun violence, right?
Do you realize that the murder and mayhem of deliberate gun violence is committed by criminals, not by people like you and me? Do you realize that criminals do not, by definition, obey the law so that even if civilian gun ownership were banned that criminals would have guns anyway? Illegal drugs have been illegal our entire lives, but they are still present in society, are they not? Do you realize if we were to ban the civilian ownership of guns, that only criminals would have guns? This is not simply a trite turn of phrase. It is true. Think of our cities today. Do you believe that people like you and me should not be able to defend ourselves against criminals? Or, perhaps you think that armed police should defend us from armed criminals because that is why we train and employ policemen?
A criminal is not going to attack policemen! He knows they are armed. He is going to attack someone like you or me, especially if he knows we are not armed, while doing his level best to steer clear of policemen. If unarmed and attacked, the very best we can hope for is that the police may catch this criminal who has attacked us long after the damage is done. Hopefully, you say -- although quite possibly not -- we will remain intact in body and soul, if not in property, to see justice served. That is, after all the very best we can hope for from the police doing their jobs conscientiously and with a great deal of good luck.
For many of us, though, that it is not enough. We believe we have the right and moral obligation to protect ourselves.
Further, consider: If all handguns could miraculously be made to disappear in a sudden "poof," do you think violent crime would disappear? Has violent crime not been with us throughout human history? Do believe that "might makes right," that the weak should be at the mercy of the strong, especially if the strong are criminals? No, right? Don't you think that a criminal, larger and more powerful than you or I, should be prevented from stealing our property or harming our person or our loved ones? If so, how will we prevent him? Call the police? Too late! Then again, perhaps you think it will not happen to you. Do you have fire insurance for your home because you think your house will burn down or because you know that it might? Maybe you are willing to live with the risk of criminal violence because it seems relatively slight to you. But would you therefore begrudge your neighbor fire insurance simply because you've decided to have none yourself?
It is legal to own a handgun in the US, and it is legal to carry them concealed, with training and a license, in most places. Get trained. Get a concealed carry license. Always remember that these rules are absolute: Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Never point a gun at something you are not willing to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
If you think you are a psychologically stable, law-abiding, normal citizen of this country, consider getting a gun. Take responsibility for your own safety. Contribute to a safer, more peaceful, more just community.
Commonsense for Gun Control Advocates:
Why You Should Consider Owning a Gun
Why You Should Consider Owning a Gun
My belief is that statistics prove that increased civilian firearms ownership decreases crime. Statistics, however, are subject to manipulation. You've got yours and I've got mine, and we'd both probably just reinforce our own views by citing them. So I prefer to try to sway your opinion with commonsense.
Ask yourself this: If a criminal suspects a potential home burglary target has a gun on the premises, is he more or less likely to rob or attack? As you'd expect, interviews with criminals show that he is less likely. This is why home invasions – in the US -- are less likely to occur at night when the owners are at home. Ask yourself if you think a criminal is more or less likely to target a house for robbery if the house has a burglar alarm sign. Or just a "Beware of the dog!" sign. The deterrence principle is the same, with the added reinforcement of the thought that if the intended victim is armed, grievous harm, perhaps death, to the criminal may result.
Is a criminal more or less likely to rob or attack a person on the street if he thinks that person may be armed? Surely you agree that given the choice between attacking a person who might be armed, and one who is almost certainly not, the criminal will choose the latter.
Perhaps you believe that the presence of a gun, either carried by a law-abiding citizen or in his or her home, in and of itself increases the likelihood of violence? Studies have shown this is a fallacy – it is demonstrably false -- but again, consider it from a common sense point of view: Think of yourself, a normal, law-abiding, family-loving, upstanding citizen. Do you honestly think a gun would make you, personally, a more violent person? Do you think you, personally, would ever be careless with a gun? If you answer in the affirmative to either question, of course you should absolutely stay away from guns, but for most citizens, for most gun owners, the opposite is true. We realize that a gun is a weighty responsibility, that its purpose is for defense only, and its very lethality makes us very, very careful. Do you go to sleep driving a car at 65 MPH?
But, you say, accidents happen. Yes, they do, and with automobiles the accident toll is indeed tragically high, but accidental death by firearm is one of the very lowest causes of accidental death. It comes after things like slipping in bathtubs and drowning in swimming pools. Then again, your real concern is probably the murder and mayhem of deliberate gun violence, right?
Do you realize that the murder and mayhem of deliberate gun violence is committed by criminals, not by people like you and me? Do you realize that criminals do not, by definition, obey the law so that even if civilian gun ownership were banned that criminals would have guns anyway? Illegal drugs have been illegal our entire lives, but they are still present in society, are they not? Do you realize if we were to ban the civilian ownership of guns, that only criminals would have guns? This is not simply a trite turn of phrase. It is true. Think of our cities today. Do you believe that people like you and me should not be able to defend ourselves against criminals? Or, perhaps you think that armed police should defend us from armed criminals because that is why we train and employ policemen?
A criminal is not going to attack policemen! He knows they are armed. He is going to attack someone like you or me, especially if he knows we are not armed, while doing his level best to steer clear of policemen. If unarmed and attacked, the very best we can hope for is that the police may catch this criminal who has attacked us long after the damage is done. Hopefully, you say -- although quite possibly not -- we will remain intact in body and soul, if not in property, to see justice served. That is, after all the very best we can hope for from the police doing their jobs conscientiously and with a great deal of good luck.
For many of us, though, that it is not enough. We believe we have the right and moral obligation to protect ourselves.
Further, consider: If all handguns could miraculously be made to disappear in a sudden "poof," do you think violent crime would disappear? Has violent crime not been with us throughout human history? Do believe that "might makes right," that the weak should be at the mercy of the strong, especially if the strong are criminals? No, right? Don't you think that a criminal, larger and more powerful than you or I, should be prevented from stealing our property or harming our person or our loved ones? If so, how will we prevent him? Call the police? Too late! Then again, perhaps you think it will not happen to you. Do you have fire insurance for your home because you think your house will burn down or because you know that it might? Maybe you are willing to live with the risk of criminal violence because it seems relatively slight to you. But would you therefore begrudge your neighbor fire insurance simply because you've decided to have none yourself?
It is legal to own a handgun in the US, and it is legal to carry them concealed, with training and a license, in most places. Get trained. Get a concealed carry license. Always remember that these rules are absolute: Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Never point a gun at something you are not willing to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
If you think you are a psychologically stable, law-abiding, normal citizen of this country, consider getting a gun. Take responsibility for your own safety. Contribute to a safer, more peaceful, more just community.
ancient-one
US Veteran
The following pertains to the Sandy Hook shooting. Every one of the listed actions is against the law and what good did the laws do?
A person who could not lawfully own a gun, steals guns, kills his mother, transports loaded guns in an auto, takes guns onto school property, breaks into to the school, discharges firearms within the city limits, murders 26 people and commits suicide.
HOW'S THAT FOR LAWS BEING THE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEMS?
A person who could not lawfully own a gun, steals guns, kills his mother, transports loaded guns in an auto, takes guns onto school property, breaks into to the school, discharges firearms within the city limits, murders 26 people and commits suicide.
HOW'S THAT FOR LAWS BEING THE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEMS?
luangtom
US Veteran
Ya might wanna bring some of the posts or letters from Sheriffs Associations to the panel. The GA Sheriffs Association voted unanimously to support the Second Amendment, against AWB included. Utah did the same. There are also others. I certainly hope that Chicago and Washington DC and LA come into the discussion and their failures on outright gun-bans.
Good luck, keep us posted.
Good luck, keep us posted.
WC - I think everyone that has commented here has given you enough ammunition to stand your ground - very good talking points and stats. All I can say is good luck, remain calm, and let us know how it all turns out.
bitstream
Member
I saw this article today; it really has some GREAT points: David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com
Another one to try: If anyone says the chestnut "It's worth it if just saves one life..." Reply, REALLY? I agree, and since we should do whatever necessary if it saves just one life... I'm glad that you agree to end abortions, that will save a LOT of lives every day. I'm also glad that you want to outlaw drinking, smoking, cars, swimming pools, peanut butter, and dogs. Everyone of those will definitely save at least one life...
Another one to try: If anyone says the chestnut "It's worth it if just saves one life..." Reply, REALLY? I agree, and since we should do whatever necessary if it saves just one life... I'm glad that you agree to end abortions, that will save a LOT of lives every day. I'm also glad that you want to outlaw drinking, smoking, cars, swimming pools, peanut butter, and dogs. Everyone of those will definitely save at least one life...
jimgansett
Member
If they should cite a study that states 85% of the world's children killed by guns are in the U.S., you might remind them that the "world" in the study was just 14 countries representing a fraction of the world population and that in truth, the number of children killed with firearms in the U.S. is much lower than the world in general.
I would think about urging the audience to do their own critical thinking in research, to check gun control stats and statements at politically neutral sites such as factcheck.org. It's a great site to debunk a lot of misleading statistics on a variety of concerns including gun control.
You might also remind them that the President as taken an oath at swearing in ceremonies to preserve and protect the constitution. Last time I looked, the amendments were part of the constitution.
Best of luck to you. There are a lot of us out here who support you and will be there in spirit.
I would think about urging the audience to do their own critical thinking in research, to check gun control stats and statements at politically neutral sites such as factcheck.org. It's a great site to debunk a lot of misleading statistics on a variety of concerns including gun control.
You might also remind them that the President as taken an oath at swearing in ceremonies to preserve and protect the constitution. Last time I looked, the amendments were part of the constitution.
Best of luck to you. There are a lot of us out here who support you and will be there in spirit.
Kudos, Sir!
WC, thanks for stepping up for us! Here are some links to materials you may find useful. There's a lot to take in, but many of the important points are easy to keep in mind.
2nd Amendment = Citizens ability to defend themselves and their community, not about hunting!
Gun Control = Civilian Disarmament
Assault Weapon = Personal Defense Weapon
High Capacity Magazine = anything that is over designed capacity, ie, the AR platform is STANDARD with a 30 round mag; the Glock G17 is STANDARD with a 17 rnd. mag, etc.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/2nd-amendment-forum/288284-semantics-manipulation-john-ross.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/287314-terrific-article-mind-anti-gunner.html
Home Page
Between those 3 articles you'll have a lot of ammo. Keep a cool head, and keep the facts in front of them. They hate that
ETA, a quote I think is pretty powerful:
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." – Ayn Rand.
WC, thanks for stepping up for us! Here are some links to materials you may find useful. There's a lot to take in, but many of the important points are easy to keep in mind.
2nd Amendment = Citizens ability to defend themselves and their community, not about hunting!
Gun Control = Civilian Disarmament
Assault Weapon = Personal Defense Weapon
High Capacity Magazine = anything that is over designed capacity, ie, the AR platform is STANDARD with a 30 round mag; the Glock G17 is STANDARD with a 17 rnd. mag, etc.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/2nd-amendment-forum/288284-semantics-manipulation-john-ross.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/287314-terrific-article-mind-anti-gunner.html
Home Page
Between those 3 articles you'll have a lot of ammo. Keep a cool head, and keep the facts in front of them. They hate that
ETA, a quote I think is pretty powerful:
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." – Ayn Rand.
Last edited:
MSgt G
US Veteran
Give us an update. How did it go?
just curious if you know what the 3rd Amendment is?? well don't feel bad because I had forgot and wondered what the heck it had to do with the 2nd Amendment???
i think this explains it pretty well Gun Control for Dummies - It's Common Sense - YouTube
i think this explains it pretty well Gun Control for Dummies - It's Common Sense - YouTube
7003006
Member
Perhaps you should pose the question how many murders and assaults are committed by people who get off on some technical mistake on a search warrant or because they "didn't understand" their Miranda warning.Maybe we should ignore the fourth and fifth as well as the second,if the police think you committed a crime they should be free to search your house/car/whatever and if they don't find any evidence but they're "sure " you committed a crime let them hold you in a cell indefinitely without a lawyer till you confess.After all if you did nothing wrong you don't really need the protections the forth and fifth provide do you?
bobf
US Veteran
You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre.
You don't gag everybody going in you punish the offender.
You don't gag everybody going in you punish the offender.
Old TexMex
Member
Good points and many more than you will get a chance to use most likely.
I have one suggestion. Before you go in, in private, pray for strength and guidance, whether you believe or not. The founders did.
Thank you for representing.
I have one suggestion. Before you go in, in private, pray for strength and guidance, whether you believe or not. The founders did.
Thank you for representing.
Similar threads
- Locked
