Let's pretend... - Page 3

Let's pretend...

This is a discussion on Let's pretend... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I understand all of the points that you all have made, but disagree with the analogies used (car, bank card, religion). They dont seem all ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: Let's pretend...

  1. #31
    Ex Member Array HOLYROLLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    269
    I understand all of the points that you all have made, but disagree with the analogies used (car, bank card, religion). They dont seem all that terrible to me.

    I have spent 30 years w/o a gun on my hip. And although I have become quite fond of carrying the past few months, I believe that I would probably live anothe 50 or so (God willing) if I couldnt do so.

    My pro 2A stance does not define me nor is it the most important thing in my life. If all my rights were taken, it would not effect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ. Nobody can touch that. I guess what Im trying to say is that all the rest fades away compared to what matters most. Come life, death, or even liberalism...I will still have Christ. God bless, HOLYROLLER.


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,828
    I think all sales at gun shows should be subject to checks, if you want to sell a gun as a private party, do it someplace other than a gun show. I have never had any trouble with getting a check run when I purchased a gun, don't know why any law abiding person would.
    How many here transfer guns to unknown persons without going through a FFL?

    I wish the NICS check worked like it was supposed to personally, and that all the information was reported like it was supposed to in a timely manner, but it isn't and that is a shame. It could be improved a great deal without infringing on anyones right to bear arms, and would not be that expensive, it would just have to be prioritized.

    Religion is not totally free, there are restrictions on what churches can and can't do, or what people can do in the name of religion. So I don't really follow that arguement.

    I have a hard time following the arguement for automobiles and guns. How many guns are there in the USA, and how many automobiles are there in the USA. Then look at the frequency of use for autos, and guns, and then compare the statistics of death or injury from each, then you will begin to have something to compare, instead of saying cars kill far more than guns, well dahh, they are used more and there are more of them, so naturally they are going to kill and injure more people.

    As far as law enforcement or other issues, I don't know anyone personally that is against stricker enforcement of all laws, whether it is drunk driving offenses, robberies, assault, forgery, or white collar crimes whatever. Most everyone will probably agree that penalties should be stiffer and not waived. But it all boils down to dollars and cents, and it is expensive to keep people in prison, and more expensive to put them to death.

    I agree that more safeties should not be a consideration, keep them away from kids, or irresponsible adults or whoever. The one gun that I have that has a disabling key, I think I threw the key away.

    I don't really care either way on the assault weapons ban thing. I don't have any guns with mags over 10 rounds, and don't intend on getting any in the future that I see. I have never need to shoot anything that many times to make it die or fall over or whatever, I prefer accuracy over volume any day.

    One last thing, for those that feel that they will be taking up their arms against our government any day soon, ***, are you suicidal or what? I understand that is what the 2A is all about, but do you ever think that it will honestly come to that in the USA and that it would be an effective stratagy for the weapons the military uses today? I understand the where people are coming from when they say it is a slippery slope when it comes to loosing rights a little bit at a time, but your loosing them every day on other issues, not just guns, and the government is in control already whether we like it or not.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    I don't really care either way on the assault weapons ban thing. I don't have any guns with mags over 10 rounds, and don't intend on getting any in the future that I see. I have never need to shoot anything that many times to make it die or fall over or whatever, I prefer accuracy over volume any day.

    One last thing, for those that feel that they will be taking up their arms against our government any day soon, ***, are you suicidal or what? I understand that is what the 2A is all about, but do you ever think that it will honestly come to that in the USA and that it would be an effective stratagy for the weapons the military uses today? I understand the where people are coming from when they say it is a slippery slope when it comes to loosing rights a little bit at a time, but your loosing them every day on other issues, not just guns, and the government is in control already whether we like it or not.
    Your attitude is realy the biggest problem we have today. People that are willing to sacrifice some peoples rights in order to salvage their own.

    You say you understand the second ammendment but you don't. Your just giving it lip service. Its not a compromise situation least the rest of the Ammendments fall. Its the only one that protects them all. Notice that its second. The right to assemble and speach being first. The founders of this country wanted us to try and talk it out first and protected our method of doing so. Then it wanted us to be able to be able to make sure it was done... secondly... and so on. They found it very important enough to write a letter from "the people" to its newly formed central government to tell that government what it can and cannot do. And it made sure it protected the peoples right to FORCE that government to do it if it could not talk it into it first.

    First of all there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Your falling to the hypnotic rhetoric they put out. There is no intent of an inanimate object. Simply put, EVERYTHING on the list is NOT an assault weapon. If one wants to get technical only fully automatic weapons could historicaly be called that. And those are not what the ban even covers. However they wish to redefine it all so they can ban things that scare them because they don't like the looks. They don't really know why. There is no statistical evidence to back them up. They just went and looked at them and picked this one and that one willy nilly. No rhyme or reason. As we saw just the other day a simple 9mm and .22 can be used in an assault. So can a car or a knife or a baseball bat. Your allowing them to define things by looks and features. They are simply slowly aiming at anything past a Black Powder gun. And then those will go next. They are looking at a Semi Automatic operation and trying to convince you that if it has black plastic on it or a adjustable stock that it then somehow magicaly transforms into an evil device. Fact is its a darn good hunting rifle and a darn fun target gun just like that. Even more so is it a more adaptable Hunting and target rifel because it can can adjust to your clothing (shorter when coats and longer when in T shirt) and it can change tops and calibers easily. The very same things a Soldier wants to do is comfort and lightness and adaptability to the conditions are exactly what a hunter wants. Where do you get the idea its different? They are slowly trying to convince you that the second ammendment is all about hunting as well. It has to be "sporting" which they want to define what that is. And magically they define it as anything they think is "war like" when in fact its all just advances in technology and adaptability. War, hunting, self defense, shooting sports... all of those benefit from technological advances. We learn things about building cars from race cars. And so on. Don't, for a minute think that an AR or an AK is not a great sporting rifle. And don't for a minute think it matters if or not it is. It still shoots one bullet every time you pull the trigger. Just wait till they then ban all Semi Automatics. Then any gun that can penetrate a vest (most hunting rifles). Then it will be every gun that shoots more than one bullet. Then it will be one that shoots a cartridge. heck.. every kid on the kyber pass knows how to hammer out a gun and a bullet in his bare feet with the simplest of tools and some metal tubes. HE won't surrender his gun. He will build it to come here and kill you. Its his only mission in life now.

    Magazine capacity is some arbitrary line in the sand. does it really matter if I have one 30 rounder and you have three 10's? Who are we fooling there? You can carry 20 of them in a vest and drop them and ram them home and barely miss a beat if you practice. Not going to change your ability to put bullets down range by hardly a bit. The ammount of bullets one can carry is limited only by his own strength.

    And, you better believe that we need our standing army of citizens more than ever. If the world goes crazy, you might be protecting your home and family from a horde after a major natural or unnatural disaster. You might be fightings off the Muslim hordes yourself. You government might be busy trying to survive leaving you out in your little patch of ground to protect what little you have left... including your life. Remember, the Japanese feared and avoided an invasion on the mainland of the US for that very reason. They feared a gun behind every tree. We were armed. Don't be so sure it might not happen. I pray it never will. But we saw it in New Orleans. We saw it in LA... we see it in our own country by our own people. Just little snippets of what might be. And there are those in this world that want to kill us. And some of them are just one bullet away from having nukes and missles to deliver them. We better be armed. We better stay armed. They will be and they are. I will lay mine down when you can assure me all of theirs are gone.

    Plus... it is the wish and great foresight of your forefathers to realize that guns in the hands of its citizens prevents Tyranny. It matters not if you think the people of the country can win. It matters that they could try. A tyrannical government would no longer be "our government" it would be the government that replaced ours. It is our constitutional declaration and duty to make sure it is returned to its rightfull place. Or die trying.

    The giving one group away to protect your narrow place in time and mind cannot be tollerated. Your either with us or against us. I am afraid its come to that now. I really hate that its come to that. When I can, I am a compromising person. But... this is one place where its been proven that compromise ends up leading to confiscation. Its not been good. Best get off the fence.

  4. #34
    Member Array kf4uel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    99

    Re:

    Assualt Weapon Ban Supporter? Assault weapon regulation should stop at the FFL level on the basis of semi-auto/full auto...thats the way it should be.. and currently is.. If you want a full auto I agree with the current procedure. Thats my stand..

    A coworker at work noted, "you have too many guns you could do same major damage...I think there should be limits on how many guns you may own." I educated vs flamed.

    A lot of people are voicing thier views after the VT tradgedy, We all need to keep our composure and be respectful but firm on our "education" ^ oops this thread starter had a grillin coming! He has no idea what an assault wepaon is [he stated he wasnt ownership applicable" and in fact how do you classify an assault weapon.... Those pistol grips for shotguns are marketed for turkey hunting!! not mass killing see the light man!

  5. #35
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    In case we are verging on smoldering flames - take it easy folks as this is one hot potatoe thread

    We're Ok right now but keep only the argument under attack.

    (Only mentioned because I happen to know where this type of subject can go! )
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,828
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    Your attitude is realy the biggest problem we have today. People that are willing to sacrifice some peoples rights in order to salvage their own.

    You say you understand the second amendment but you don't. Your just giving it lip service. Its not a compromise situation least the rest of the Amendments fall.

    First of all there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Your falling to the hypnotic rhetoric they put out.
    I don't know what attitude your referring to, because I am not sacrificing anyones rights to salvage my own on anything, or advocating the position of making someone else lose any right either.

    I do fully understand the 2A. Is speech limited as a result of the 1A, yes? There are certain things that you can not do under the premise of free speech or assembly. These limits are there for the protection of society as a whole, over and above any one single persons right to say whatever they want. Just as speech is limited, there have been limits placed on people under the 2A. There are valid arguements as to where those limits are, and there will always be. That is exactly why there is a Supreme Court and why we have elections. In modern society, the election is a far more usefull tool than the gun against a government you don't like. I don't feel that it will ever come to that in the USA, where we have to take up arms against our own government, and I pray that I am never wrong on that point. As far as taking up arms against muslims or whomever might be invading this country one day, I don't know anyone that isn't prepared to do that, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that wouldn't.

    I did not coin the phrase assault weapon, so I am not falling for any rhetoric, I was simply restating the question asked in the original post. I believe that the politicians coined the phrase and passed the ban that was in place, and expired and hasn't been proposed again. Although our current president said he would sign it if it was passed again, but from what I have seen, there is no serious move toward reinstatement of the ban. So I am not really fearful of that, but like I said earlier, it would not affect me either way, just don't mistake that as a calling for the reinstatement.

    As a side note, I heard that some major democrats in congress are looking to meet with the NRA. We will just see where that goes. Maybe all the fears that some people are having will turn out to be unfounded after all.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  7. #37
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,839
    First of all there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Your falling to the hypnotic rhetoric they put out.
    For what it's worth, there is such thing as an assault rifle. It is a valid term to describe a select fire rifle that uses an intermediate round. It isn't an AR-15 or a semi-auto AK, but assault rifle is a valid term when applied to the proper weapon.

    Now, to ignore all of the flames, I am going to speak to the issue at hand. Why we do not want to allow any gun control type legislation to pass.

    Any piece of legislation passed will not be the end point. The Brady Campaign sees all of their proposals as stepping stones to their ultimate goal of removing all private ownership of firearms. If we shrug and say we don't care about background checks at a gun show that will allow the left to start making progress toward their ultimate goal. In principle I would not have a problem with doing background checks at a gunshow. It is no more or less invasive than a background check at the local gun shop. But, giving any ground is a mistake.

    The only place I disagree with you is the limited capacity magazines. Why would we intentionally under arm ourselves? There is a very small chance that you will need 10 rounds to fight off the zombies that appear. But, if you should happen to need 11, wouldn't you feel silly for saying 10 was enough? In all honesty, it wouldn't impact me too much, because if they pass a law limiting magazine capacity I would simply change jobs to something that would allow me to buy the magazines anyway. I am fortunate in that income isn't too important thanks to my wife's vocation. Not everyone is that lucky.
    Last edited by Echo_Four; April 23rd, 2007 at 03:31 AM.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array rachilders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    932
    My my my, did you step on a hot potato! I guess you haven't yet realized there is no "grey" area for most people here when it comes to the subject of gun control. I'll try to be more gentle in my reply than a few others I've read. Consider it a lesson learned the hard way.

    Now, to your original questions, lets see...

    1. Brady Background Checks at Gun Shows (to include private sales)
    2. Strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS)
    3. Child Proof Handguns
    4. Assault weapons ban

    #1. Seems kind of pointless. Anyone who wants to make a private sale to another individual would simply go elsewhere, like out in the parking lot or across the street, to make the sale to avoid the background check if they want to.

    #2. I agree to the degree that the information that is already suppose to be there SHOULD be there before we expand the check to new areas. Beyond that, I would add (anyone can feel free to argue if you disagree, but it's my opinion, not anyone elses) that I feel certain medical conditions should be included in the check, so the information should be reported and placed in the data base. I would much rather NOT have a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic have access to a Glock 23 or Remington 870 should he decide not to take his meds.

    #3. Guns already come with a lock (either factory installed or as aftermarked trigger locks), so why add a redundant requirement.

    #4. Just "feel good" legislation that actually did nothing to make guns (or the American public) safer. It was based mainly on how a gun looks as opposed to how it worked. That's why it expired after 10 years and wasn't renewed... it did nothing but drive up the price of magazines with a +10 capacity and banned the import of certain weapons. OTOH, those weapons could still be bought IF they were made in the USA or had a few cosmetic changes made to them. If you wanted to carry 30 rounds of ammo in a normally Hi cap pistol, you just used 3 mags instead of 2 or purchased a pre ban magazine at 3 times it's original selling price. A few states still have their own version of the AWB that limits mag capacity (Kalifornia for example), and their crime rates are as high - or higher - than states without bans. FWIW, the Va Tech shooter carried 10 rd mags for his .22 pistol, the shooter in the WA state mall shooting earlier this year used a shotgun, while the NASA shooter in Houston a few days ago used a .38 revolver. Any AWB style law wouldn't have changed a thing.

    As for religion, that wasn't part of the original question. Besides, I wouldn't go there anyway. That's between you and your maker. I also expect that same courtesy from others.
    Last edited by rachilders; April 23rd, 2007 at 03:47 AM.
    "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

  9. #39
    Distinguished Member Array BIG E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLYROLLER View Post
    I understand all of the points that you all have made, but disagree with the analogies used (car, bank card, religion). They dont seem all that terrible to me.

    I have spent 30 years w/o a gun on my hip. And although I have become quite fond of carrying the past few months, I believe that I would probably live anothe 50 or so (God willing) if I couldnt do so.

    My pro 2A stance does not define me nor is it the most important thing in my life. If all my rights were taken, it would not effect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ. Nobody can touch that. I guess what Im trying to say is that all the rest fades away compared to what matters most. Come life, death, or even liberalism...I will still have Christ. God bless, HOLYROLLER.
    Believe me the liberals will take all of your guns if you let them. Maybe you don't care if your rights are taken. I DO and I will fight for them. It amazes me that you would give up your rights so willingly.

    I hope you do live another 50 years and I hope you do it without the need of a weapon. We all hope that. My wish would be that no one here would ever have to draw their weapon. I don't want to ever draw MY weapon, but I want the right to protect my family from harm.

    If you are serious about protecting yourself or your family then stand up and protect your rights as well.

    I am glad that you have a relationship with Christ, but he is not going to protect you when the BG's come a knockin. Mr. Smith and Wesson will.

    God is no excuse to give up your rights.
    Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!

    -- Theodore Roosevelt --

  10. #40
    Ex Member Array HOLYROLLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    269
    farronwolf...I tend to think along the same lines as you, balanced and realistic. I dont believe its "your with us or against us".

    Echo Four...I do agree with your "stepping stone" comment. Looking at the big picture its obvious thats the goal of these groups, to eventually get rid of all guns. Like any good lobby group, they will take what they can get, when they can get it.

    a kayaker..."I am glad that you have a relationship with Christ, but he is not going to protect you when the BG's come a knockin. Mr. Smith and Wesson will."
    Firstly, I dont own a Smith & Wesson, it's a Springfield XD.
    Secondly you must not know the God I serve and I will take His advice over yours; Matt 10;28 - "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

    I really dont want this to turn into a religious debate so I will stop steering it in that direction. Let's keep the focus on our "insert appropriate divine being" given rights. God bless, HOLROLLER.

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLYROLLER View Post
    . . . you must not know the God I serve and I will take His advice over yours; Matt 10;28 - "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

    I really dont want this to turn into a religious debate so I will stop steering it in that direction. Let's keep the focus on our "insert appropriate divine being" given rights. God bless, HOLROLLER.
    Riiiighhht. You don't want to turn this into a religious debate. That's why you injected religion into this thread to begin with. If your religion is sufficient for your protection, then you should have no need for a mere firearm anyway, and this is, well, rather a pointless discussion for you, isn't it?

    For those of us who may be concerned with such mundane issues as preservation of rights, there are other considerations, such as the devolution of Constitutional guarantees by incremental restrictions, cloaked in the guise of "public safety". Since we are not, at this point anyway, a theocracy, I see our Constitution as, well, rather important.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  12. #42
    Senior Member Array Daddy Warcrimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    736
    I have no problem with enhancing the accuracy (but not scope) of the background checks so long as Sarah and Rosie pay for it.

    The "child safety" devices bother me because they are either inadequate or diminish the functionality of the firearm.

    Assault weapons? I find the idea offensive because it's based upon lies.
    "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger"

    DaddyWarcrimes.com

  13. #43
    Member Array Major E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hawaii, South Korea, North Carolina, or Guam...or deployed.
    Posts
    22

    Citizens vs. Government

    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    One last thing, for those that feel that they will be taking up their arms against our government any day soon, ***, are you suicidal or what? I understand that is what the 2A is all about, but do you ever think that it will honestly come to that in the USA and that it would be an effective stratagy for the weapons the military uses today? I understand the where people are coming from when they say it is a slippery slope when it comes to loosing rights a little bit at a time, but your loosing them every day on other issues, not just guns, and the government is in control already whether we like it or not.
    I disagree, because a true and popular uprising against the government would indeed succeed, and the reason is the government is not in control, Americans who happen to work in the government are.

    When I took my oath of office I swore to support and defend the Constitution, not to support and defend the Democrats or the Republicans or Whatever the Current Administration Is. That is a big difference. If there truly was a popular uprising against the government, you can be sure that the military would not just blindly follow orders to slaughter the citizens of America. The military is composed of Americans, after all.

    The military is bound to follow only Lawful orders - and since my oath is to the Constitution, I've already decided (no matter the consequences) that if I ever receive an order to go house to house and confiscate weapons from home owners, I will disobey that order as an unlawful order. I decided this during the LA Riots, as I realized it was not a stretch to imagine a unit that I was in in the future could be called upon to quell a domestic situation. The events at New Orleans after Katrina solidified my resolve on that score as well.


  14. #44
    Distinguished Member Array Stetson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Augusta,Maine
    Posts
    1,609
    We need to oppose Brady every step of the way because they don't
    want the average Joe owning any firearms! They like the UN
    stance regarding firearms ownership which no one should have them
    period!No new laws !Enforce exsisting laws on the books ! Take an anti to the range for a day of education!

  15. #45
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Major E View Post
    I disagree, because a true and popular uprising against the government would indeed succeed, and the reason is the government is not in control, Americans who happen to work in the government are.

    When I took my oath of office I swore to support and defend the Constitution, not to support and defend the Democrats or the Republicans or Whatever the Current Administration Is. That is a big difference. If there truly was a popular uprising against the government, you can be sure that the military would not just blindly follow orders to slaughter the citizens of America. The military is composed of Americans, after all.

    The military is bound to follow only Lawful orders - and since my oath is to the Constitution, I've already decided (no matter the consequences) that if I ever receive an order to go house to house and confiscate weapons from home owners, I will disobey that order as an unlawful order. I decided this during the LA Riots, as I realized it was not a stretch to imagine a unit that I was in in the future could be called upon to quell a domestic situation. The events at New Orleans after Katrina solidified my resolve on that score as well.

    Major E makes excellent points. Resistance against unlawful acts of government is neither far-fetched nor necessarily suicidal. There have been instances where the willingness of Americans to take action against corruption in government has made a difference. One circumstance which especially comes to mind is the "Battle of Athens". Here's an excerpt of an account, located in full at http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm .

    The Battle of Athens

    On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud -- forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies -- by the local political boss. They got no help.

    These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution - Article 1, Section 26 - recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Pretend I Am Your College Buddy & Help Me Choose My First Holster
    By McPatrickClan in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 09:17 PM

Search tags for this page

brady campaign bernhard goetz

Click on a term to search for related topics.