Why Not A War On ILLEGAL firearms?

This is a discussion on Why Not A War On ILLEGAL firearms? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense I think the people wanting to legalize drugs do not understand the devastating effects drugs have on families and society. There's ...

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 120 of 120

Thread: Why Not A War On ILLEGAL firearms?

  1. #106
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I think the people wanting to legalize drugs do not understand the devastating effects drugs have on families and society.
    There's an enormous difference between a marijuana and crack, and it pervades the argument. Equating them just because we're used to thinking of them as "drugs" in general isn't accurate.

    Many people, including most users of MJ, can maintain a life separate from their use of the drug, like most who drink alcohol. The use of the drug doesn't by default define your life. Certainly, someone can overuse/abuse/use irresponsibly, but this is true of most behaviors/habits/substances, or even the internet. Many, many people smoke marijuana occasionally, or even habitually (and discreetly), and still do just fine in life. Some have a problem with it...however, these kind of users aren't very much interested in whether it's legal or not anyhow.

    Crack/other addictive drugs will make you a slave to them on a chemical level. (I know several people who say this is nonsense and propaganda spawned of the "war on drugs"; they're idiots.) The massive societal cost of these drugs is the issue.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I think we all recognize alcohol is bad and its use causes traffic deaths, domestic violence and a host of societal problems. Yes, alcohol is legal but that doesn't make it something that should be encouraged. It is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to drink. I wonder why that is...As a society we decided that kids are harmed by alcohol use. Adults are, too. Why would anyone want to open up a brand new vice that harms society? Because someone likes to get stoned? And they think it doesn't harm others (the libertarian mantra.) Marijuana use definitely harms society and should remain illegal.
    I don't think we all recognize alcohol is "bad". I certainly don't, and a preponderance of evidence suggests I'm in the majority. It's not "bad" in and of itself. I have no problem encouraging the use of alcohol in a responsible way. I think we do recognize that the abuse of alcohol is bad. That's true of lots of things.

    It's illegal for those under the age of 21 to drink, in most places. Wasn't always so. This is an arbitrary age chosen by tradition to limit full franchise. It's generally considered that with age comes a greater level of experience that will, in turn, engender greater responsibility. Not always the case, of course. I've always felt that if you're old enough to vote and serve in our armed forces, it shouldn't be illegal for you to purchase a six-pack.

    It's also illegal for those under the age of 21 to purchase handguns. Are guns "bad"? No, their misuse is bad. There are age restrictions on driving automobiles. Are cars "bad"? No, crummy driving is bad.

    All the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how "bad" marijuana is just diverts resources from more worthy causes. Guess what? The vice is already opened up. The genie ain't being put back in the bottle. Should all substances legal? Nope. Although most of the really dangerous ones are legal, but regulated.

    Current marijuana laws are even less effective than the Volstead Act was in controlling alcohol.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  4. #108
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by rodc13 View Post
    I don't think we all recognize alcohol is "bad". I certainly don't, and a preponderance of evidence suggests I'm in the majority. It's not "bad" in and of itself. I have no problem encouraging the use of alcohol in a responsible way. I think we do recognize that the abuse of alcohol is bad. That's true of lots of things.
    And what good comes from encouraging alcohol use? No, alcohol is not bad; alcohol use is bad.

    It's illegal for those under the age of 21 to drink, in most places. Wasn't always so. This is an arbitrary age chosen by tradition to limit full franchise. It's generally considered that with age comes a greater level of experience that will, in turn, engender greater responsibility. Not always the case, of course. I've always felt that if you're old enough to vote and serve in our armed forces, it shouldn't be illegal for you to purchase a six-pack.
    Why do you think that if you're old enough to serve and vote (by the way, I don't think 18 year olds should be allowed to vote; they have not earned a stake in society) that you should be allowed to down a six pack? Why not a couple of needles? Or a few hits of crack?

    It's also illegal for those under the age of 21 to purchase handguns. Are guns "bad"? No, their misuse is bad. There are age restrictions on driving automobiles. Are cars "bad"? No, crummy driving is bad.
    The difference is that guns and cars serve a useful purpose. Alcohol, marijuana and other mind altering drugs do not serve a useful purpose.

    All the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how "bad" marijuana is just diverts resources from more worthy causes. Guess what? The vice is already opened up. The genie ain't being put back in the bottle.
    No gnashing of teeth. No wailing. Just reasoned argument as to why marijuana should not be legalized. So, if some bad behavior is pervasive then we should simply give up and watch the destruction of society rather than atempting to address the problem?

    Should all substances legal? Nope. Although most of the really dangerous ones are legal, but regulated.
    Why shouldn't crack and heroin be legalized?

    Current marijuana laws are even less effective than the Volstead Act was in controlling alcohol.
    I don't disagree that marijuana laws do not do enough to deter use. However, they do deter use. Many people who would become addicted to marijuana do not indulge because it is illegal.

    Just last week another ton of marijuana was intercepted by Border Patrol here in southern Arizona. That is a large quantity of drugs that will not find its way into the hands of our children (or adults that act like children.)

  5. #109
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Those arguments aren't near as reasoned as you're making them out to be, SelfDefense. I agree that alcohol use is bad and drug use is bad; we're on the same page there. I agree that if one type of drug is legalized, others ought to be as well; on the same page there, too. Where we differ is your opinion that all such subtances should be/remain illegal, whereas I don't hold that view.

    Here are some confounds to our argument.

    1) You've said yourself that causation doesn't exist. It's not the drug's fault people use it any more than the gun's fault someone uses it. It's inanimate.

    2) The illegalization of drugs is not the authority of the federal government; drugs themselves pose no national security risk.

    3) Legislation of morality fails; Prohibition was only one instance of such a failure.

    4) I've stated this before: while most crime involves use of alcohol and/or drugs, most use of alcohol and/or drugs does not result in criminal activity (beyond the legality of use itself).

    All of this said, drugs will not lead to the downfall of society any more than alcohol did. I don't believe in federal taxation of tobacco to be a good thing, so I certainly won't advocate legalization and taxation of drugs, although doing so would fall under the authority of the state and I have no issues with states exercising their lawful authority. The biggest issues I have with the "drug war" I've mentioned above. In addition, both the costs to taxpayers and unintended social consequences demand investigation and publicized explanation into the "war" and it is then the duty of the people to communicate their wishes, based on that information, to their legislators. It is not the function of our government to do what is not asked of them and that is not in their authority "for our good".

    If you are so vehemently against alcohol and drug use, advocate. Teach your kids not to, convince other parents to teach their kids not to, and so on.


    -B

  6. #110
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    most use of alcohol and/or drugs does not result in criminal activity (beyond the legality of use itself).
    I actually agree with most of what you've said. However, this is simply inaccurate; the truth is what leads me to support the illegality of hard drugs.

    Hard drugs DO cause crime. Addicts can't generally work after a point, yet they need more and more of a drug over time. Ask any cop who works a crime-ridden neighborhood about the relationship between drugs and crime, aside from the drugs themselves.

    Also, legalizing [hard] drugs will not end the illegal sale of drugs. Given the established trade and the ability of black market drugs to undercut the price of legalized drugs (no tax, exploitation of cheap 3d world labor in production, vertical monopoly, ability to cut with anything, no need to adhere to safety/purity standards), illegal drug markets and the resulting murders/thefts/other associated crimes between and among dealers and users will not go away. And addicts, especially the poor ones who constitute the majority of drug abusers, will go to the cheapest source for their drugs. So with legalizing, if we want to shut out the "street pharmacists," we'd possibly have to go the decidedly un-libertarian step of subsidizing, eliminating the tax revenue this might create. And I have an ethical problem with taxing drugs and thus skimming money off of misery and exploitation, however legal.

    But it's not about legislating morality at its heart...it's about the social cost that we all have to bear.


    Edit: Also, alcohol use isn't bad. Some is, some isn't. Mine is great. I really enjoy the 5-10 beers I might consume responsibly in a single month, and my wife enjoys the glass of wine we might have with dinner.

  7. #111
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Those arguments aren't near as reasoned as you're making them out to be, SelfDefense.
    Maybe I've had too much to drink.

    1) You've said yourself that causation doesn't exist. It's not the drug's fault people use it any more than the gun's fault someone uses it. It's inanimate.
    Causation only exists that when these drugs are consumed. It affects judgement.

    2) The illegalization of drugs is not the authority of the federal government; drugs themselves pose no national security risk.
    Not a national security risk but they pose a societal problem. The Federal/state issue always comes up with these types of issues. There mst be some standards for our country while still leaving room for state sovereignty. I have no problem leaving drug legislation to the states. Like abortion, most people are against it.

    3) Legislation of morality fails; Prohibition was only one instance of such a failure.
    All laws legislate morality. Laws against murder are enacted because murder is not moral. Not only can morality be legislated, but that is exactly why we have laws.

    Is our society better or worse because of alcohol? As others have noted, virtually all crime has an alcohol component.

    4) I've stated this before: while most crime involves use of alcohol and/or drugs, most use of alcohol and/or drugs does not result in criminal activity (beyond the legality of use itself).
    Very true. I'm not sure as to how that is an argument in favor of legalizing cocaine and crack. Or marijuana.

    All of this said, drugs will not lead to the downfall of society any more than alcohol did.
    I think that society has deteriorated markedly and noticably since the '60s, when drugs became mainstream. These same people are now society's liberals, who are posing a real and imminent danger to our way of life.

    In addition, both the costs to taxpayers and unintended social consequences demand investigation and publicized explanation into the "war" and it is then the duty of the people to communicate their wishes, based on that information, to their legislators. It is not the function of our government to do what is not asked of them and that is not in their authority "for our good".
    Sometimes the cost seems too much to bear. It is similar to those that dislike the 'military complex.' We spend tens of billions of dollars to secure this nation against current and future threats. Many argue it is a waste of resources. But the government (the people) understand it is necessary to maintain our freedom. I am not arguing the war on drugs is in any way similar, only that judging the cost is not a matter of personal preferences.

    If you are so vehemently against alcohol and drug use, advocate. Teach your kids not to, convince other parents to teach their kids not to, and so on.
    This forum reaches far more people than any local advocacy. I'm not sure whether I would classify my opinions as vehement. I have seen the damage done to families by drug and alcohol use. I simply want to express my opinion.

  8. #112
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    All I know is what I have seen for myself.

    One of these observations is that the marketplace adapts to conditions.

    A few years back, meth labs were a big problem. To combat this, legislation was passed restricting the sale of pseudoephedrine, a decongestant used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. You may know it as Sudafed.

    It worked against the meth LABS, but not against the METH. They're just bringing more of it in from Mexico now.

    Meanwhile, when I've got a stuffy nose, I have to go to the pharmacy counter, show my ID, and sign a statement saying that I'm not making meth before they'll sell me 12 tablets of a simple cold medicine that I used to be able to just toss in my shopping cart, or pick up at a convenience store.

  9. #113
    VIP Member Array cdwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    MS
    Posts
    2,261
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentX View Post
    Facts: The narco-cartels are an established vertical monopoly.

    They can produce and transport drugs cheaper than any legal producer could, even given the risks in the current enforcement environment.

    They don't have to tack on the price of US taxes, standards of labor, or purity/"safety" standards the US would enforce on legal cocaine/heroin production.

    Most users can't use these drugs without becoming addicted.

    Addicts will buy the cheapest substance available.

    Most addicts will eventually be unable to support themselves and will by necessity turn to crime to get their drugs by stealing them or stealing the get the money to buy them. Drug users neglect and/or abandon families. This has a damaging effect on our communities and affects us all. Drug abuse is not a simple matter of one person ruining his own life.

    Drug use is and will remain concentrated in our poorest areas...yet we're going to tax the drugs and essentially exploit these vulnerable areas as a nation?

    Question: Could American agriculture even support the growing of the coca plants and poppies, or would we still be sending money to South America and central Asia for the raw materials for these legal drugs?

    Mind you, I think marijuana should be legalized, since it's no worse or possibly better for some than alcohol; it can also be produced without the cartels. Narcotics and cocaine should not be.
    Legalize M.J., Tax it,give it to border patrol and stop the heroin and cocaine and bodies(no telling what else) from entering the country.
    Selfdefense ..........

    Where to start...
    GUN CONTROL= I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THE GUN

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  10. #114
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Quote Originally Posted by dcb188 View Post
    Well, let me rephrase the question another way.
    Are there firearms out on the streets right now in the hands of people who are not licensed to have them. i.e. thugs?

    I spent a career in the US Army. I have also defended my home on two occasions from gun armed scumbags with felony records. Why should I be licensed in order to own a gun? Why not license the criminals who commit these crimes?

  11. #115
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Causation only exists that when these drugs are consumed. It affects judgement.
    A claim easily disproven by the frequency of crimes without drug components, and the frequency of drug use without crime (you know what I mean).


    Not a national security risk but they pose a societal problem. The Federal/state issue always comes up with these types of issues. There mst be some standards for our country while still leaving room for state sovereignty. I have no problem leaving drug legislation to the states. Like abortion, most people are against it.
    We're on the same page here; all I ask is to remember the proper role of the federal government in relation to the states; the "standards" argument has been used often to justify centralization/socialization of several things.


    All laws legislate morality. Laws against murder are enacted because murder is not moral. Not only can morality be legislated, but that is exactly why we have laws.

    Is our society better or worse because of alcohol? As others have noted, virtually all crime has an alcohol component.
    Would the country have developed differently if Prohibition was left in place?

    My wording was admittedly poor, but you and I both know that laws against murder are not in the same league as laws against substance possession/use. The mere possession of drugs hurts no one and the use of drugs hurts only the user (strictly speaking). Murder involves actively taking the life of another, which isn't even close. Laws against assault, battery, etc., are laws that protect people from the direct actions of others. Laws against substances are laws aimed at the potential for impaired judgment that might lead to a crime.


    Very true. I'm not sure as to how that is an argument in favor of legalizing cocaine and crack. Or marijuana.
    None of these are arguments in favor of legalization; these are simply confounds to the arguments you presented. A few can be used as parts of arguments for legalization, but I would have to be a lot more specific and have a lot more supportive evidence.


    I think that society has deteriorated markedly and noticably since the '60s, when drugs became mainstream. These same people are now society's liberals, who are posing a real and imminent danger to our way of life.
    Remarkably, this is about the time when the "war on drugs" kicked into high gear, against displayed that the harder something is legislated against the more users there appears to be (this trend is consistent with that of Prohibition). Just sayin'.


    Sometimes the cost seems too much to bear. It is similar to those that dislike the 'military complex.' We spend tens of billions of dollars to secure this nation against current and future threats. Many argue it is a waste of resources. But the government (the people) understand it is necessary to maintain our freedom. I am not arguing the war on drugs is in any way similar, only that judging the cost is not a matter of personal preferences.
    Oh, I'm pretty sure most people have an issue with the military-industrial complex for different reasons than it simply costs too much. Government waste (which is huge), no-bid contracts, and many other incidents are what earn the ire against the military-industrial complex (incidentally, and more closely related to our discussion, is the aptly-named pharmaceutical-industrial complex). Like you said, though: this isn't the same thing.

    In defense spending, the disagreements are most often argued in terms of "how much". In the "war on drugs", in stead of "How much are we spending?", the question becomes a matter of "Why are we spending?"


    This forum reaches far more people than any local advocacy. I'm not sure whether I would classify my opinions as vehement. I have seen the damage done to families by drug and alcohol use. I simply want to express my opinion.
    Fair enough. It's possible I read more emotion than there was in your posts.


    -B

  12. #116
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentX View Post
    I actually agree with most of what you've said. However, this is simply inaccurate; the truth is what leads me to support the illegality of hard drugs.
    I'm open to my positions being disproved. Shall we start with differentiating consumption of alcohol and consumption of other drugs?


    Hard drugs DO cause crime. Addicts can't generally work after a point, yet they need more and more of a drug over time. Ask any cop who works a crime-ridden neighborhood about the relationship between drugs and crime, aside from the drugs themselves.
    Incorrect. The taking of illicit substances does not itself cause crime. It impairs judgment, which can cause crime. So does firing people when times are rough. If you can prove your point, you probably should, because there is no backing to your argument.

    Also, legalizing [hard] drugs will not end the illegal sale of drugs. Given the established trade and the ability of black market drugs to undercut the price of legalized drugs (no tax, exploitation of cheap 3d world labor in production, vertical monopoly, ability to cut with anything, no need to adhere to safety/purity standards), illegal drug markets and the resulting murders/thefts/other associated crimes between and among dealers and users will not go away. And addicts, especially the poor ones who constitute the majority of drug abusers, will go to the cheapest source for their drugs. So with legalizing, if we want to shut out the "street pharmacists," we'd possibly have to go the decidedly un-libertarian step of subsidizing, eliminating the tax revenue this might create. And I have an ethical problem with taxing drugs and thus skimming money off of misery and exploitation, however legal.
    I understand what you're saying, but I want to know why you feel it's libertarian to eliminate tax revenue when libertarians are quite often against taxation of things exactly like this.

    Anyway, your point is a good one, and legalization could not be an instant-answer. However, diminishing the the laws over time while simultaneously cracking down hard on the northern and southern borders, reconsolidating and bolstering of our security forces (specifically Border Patrol and Coast Guard), and making more sound economic decisions (balanced spending, etc.) on the part of government would go an extremely long way in reducing stress on our society as a whole. It might, or might not, diminish demand for drugs, but it will make it a hell of a lot harder for smuggled merchandise to get into the country and have a host of other positive effects.

    The "social cost we all have to bear" is a concept and phrase I'm pretty sick of hearing. It's not my duty to support something that doesn't appear to be working. It's not my duty to support something whose costs outweigh any benefits. It's not my duty to accept as system that's harder on drug users than violent criminals who don't use. It's not my duty to just "accept" as if it's some patriotic duty.


    -B

  13. #117
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Incorrect. The taking of illicit substances does not itself cause crime. It impairs judgment, which can cause crime. So does firing people when times are rough. If you can prove your point, you probably should, because there is no backing to your argument.
    BAC, this is an old one, but I thought I should mention that I don't think the impairment of reason by drugs causes crime. Addicts' need for money to buy drugs and/or the need for the drugs themselves cause crime.

    As far as taxes and libertarianism, well, #1, I'm not a libertarian myself...#2, I never said it was libertarian to tax drugs...just that it's un-libertarian to subsidize them so that the poor can afford them. That said, many libertarians do believe in consumption taxes, and drugs being a consumed item, I think a lot of people, libertarian or not, would support the collection of taxes off of recreational drug sales. Sure beats taxing groceries.

  14. #118
    Member Array Zaraster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by dcb188 View Post
    Here is what I originally had in mind. You figure it out. I am done.
    A little savage in a big city says i think I'm gonna go shoot somebody and get some dough. F 'm I just gonna kill em fiveoh aint s..t
    So he goes, but first he has a gun or gets one.
    Where did he get it?
    Could anything be done to restrict or prohibit his access to a gun.
    If not, then he gets a gun, goes shoots somone, five oh catches him he goes to the metal crib.
    Fine.
    Next loser savage comes along. Now he wants da same ting. They always have access to guns.
    WHERE ARE THESE PARTICULAR GUNS COMING FROM?
    I have no answers, just questions. I am interested in what if anything can be done about his ready access and supply re guns for these types.
    This is my original intent in the very first post when I said war on illegal guns. Then some said they did not know what that meant, some said define illegal, some said define guns etc etc. So here we are with this question, to which I have no answers but I do have suggestions.
    Sir
    The war you are looking for does not work. It does not work on drugs, alchol, or anything.
    That is a fact. Here at home in Texas anyone can keep and own a gun in there home or car as long as they are not a criminal or committing a crime. All the laws that are needed to control guns from getting to the criminal element are already on the books if they were enforceable and enforced then the problems would be solved. The war on drugs you have talked about has not worked there are more drugs here than when the war started and that is a total ban. Any father legislation or bans would only serve to make criminals out of good citizens that only want to live in piece and protect there homes and the people they love.
    Guns are not moved in Big Rigs but rather in small quantities by petty thieves after they have stolen them from legal citizens mostly to support there’re drug habits.
    So the first step to solve the gun problem would be to finish the war on drugs and get all the drugs and drug addicts off the street.
    Good question to which there is no workable answer

  15. #119
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentX View Post
    BAC, this is an old one, but I thought I should mention that I don't think the impairment of reason by drugs causes crime. Addicts' need for money to buy drugs and/or the need for the drugs themselves cause crime.
    Which still operates off the principle of punishing what might happen instead of what does happen. Most crimes are a result of drugs, and most drug uses don't result in commission of crimes (non-drug-use-related). There still isn't justification for the arguments in support of maintaining the "war on drugs" or legalizing some but not others.


    -B

  16. #120
    VIP Member Array Rob99VMI04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NOVA...200 square miles surrounded by reality
    Posts
    3,214
    Quote Originally Posted by dcb188 View Post
    Well, let me rephrase the question another way.
    Are there firearms out on the streets right now in the hands of people who are not licensed to have them. i.e. thugs?
    Be carefule unlike Massachusetts Virginia is a free state and we have has no licensing requirement there for my G23 I'm carrying right now is not registered, reported, on paper.
    “Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll

    Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

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. Federal agents ordered to allow illegal firearms purchases in Arizona
    By loboleather in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 7th, 2011, 12:41 AM
  2. Bill O'Reilly Defends Illegal Seizures of Firearms
    By Diesel 007 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: March 1st, 2010, 05:05 PM
  3. 12 Elements of Firearms Training "The dozen critical elements of modern firearms trai
    By DCJS Instructor in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 4th, 2009, 03:32 PM
  4. Another Illegal shoots LEO
    By trayzor in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 13th, 2009, 10:18 PM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 20th, 2007, 04:33 PM

Search tags for this page

crimes committed with illegal guns

Click on a term to search for related topics.