.

8th Circuit bans machine gun ownership

Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
I knew this one was coming. It was inevitable, after the DC v. Heller decision.

In Heller, the Supremes said that the 2nd amendment's protection of our right to own and carry guns, did not extend to "dangerous or unusual weapons", or weapons not "in common usage". Leaving aside the question of how something that wasn't dangerous could be called a weapon at all, the "not in common usage" part left us ripe for a continuation of all the unconstitutional laws the anti-gun-rights people have been building up over the years.

In 1934 the government made a law saying that anyone buyig a machine gun had to pay a $200 tax (more than many such guns were worth back then) and go through and incredible amount of paperwork, waiting periods, etc. And this during a massive depression where people were earning $5/day if they were lucky enough to have a job at all. Later the govt banned the manufacture of machine guns, and banned any importation of them. As a result of all this, the supply of such items dwindled and prices skyrocketed.

And surprise, surprise! Today machine guns are "not in common usage" at all! Gee, who would have ever guessed THAT would be the result, eh?

And now we have the 8th Circuit deciding that since they are "not in common usage", due mostly to unconstitutional Federal laws over the years, its' OK to remove the 2nd amendment's protection of people who want to own them now - an even worse violation of the 2nd.

Only in America......!!

As I've said, the efforts of the anti-gun-rights people will remain unceasing. Every bit of this battle will have to be fought, as we wrest our rights back from them. This just openes another of the many fronts on which we have to fight.


http://www.abajournal.com/news/appea...endment_claim/

Appeals Court Rejects Militia Organizer's Second Amendment Claim

Posted 5 hours, 28 minutes ago
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A federal appeals court has ruled a man who organized his own militia did not have a Second Amendment right to possess a machine gun.

Hollis Wayne Fincher had argued that his Washington County Militia was a well-regulated militia that was protected by the amendment. A federal judge rejected his claim and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in an Aug. 13 opinion (PDF).

The 8th Circuit said in a footnote that Fincher loses under both his militia argument and under an argument he didn't make: that he has an individual right to own a machine gun under the Supreme Court's recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The June 26 Heller decision said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home, but said the right "is not unlimited."

The 8th Circuit cited language in Heller that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and said a machine gun falls into that unprotected category. "Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use," the appeals court said.

The 8th Circuit opinion also said Fincher's militia was not affiliated with the state and not subject to protection as a well-regulated militia.
«13

Comments

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,837 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Heller decision was a great victory. I know this because it is what I have been told innumerable times by gun advocates in this very forum.

    It is unfathomable that this monumental verification of our 2nd Amendment Rights could be twisted in such a manner as to condone such restrictions.

    It sickens me that we still hear of the power of the Heller decision whenever a city or county simply re-tools their ownership restrictions to better fit within the new definitions.

    We were thrown a poisoned bone, and most gun owners at the urging of the NRA continue to celebrate.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • rkba4everrkba4ever Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I was just going to post about this very same subject[:D] It just goes to prove that todays judges do not care for the protections the constitution was designed to offer the people of this once great nation. Nowhere in the constitution do I remember reading that "the gummint" had to approve a militias creation. Weren't they called "irregulars"? So if we were to be invaded by a foreign military force, the people couldn't form insurgent cells to battle the enemy with their own arms? Funny, I thought that was what 2A was all about - true citizen soldiers, providing their own arms for the common defence from foreign or domestic enemies. Seems to me this country is already over-run with domestic enemies to the constitution!!

    I've been reading snippets from an upcoming novella called "Absolved" over on Keep and Bear Arms dot com. I think more folks should read that if they get a chance. It's fictional, but I think it may be an almost prophetic work of fiction, and if we don't due something now to put a tourniquet on the bleeding of our liberties, it will become an actuality.........

    I'll get off my soapbox now..........
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Friend, #5;
    Soapboxes are GOOD things...and welcomed by intelligent folks.

    I shamelessly stole this topic and threw it out on GB.
    Don't expect it to last long...but felt the info was too important to allow them to ignore it over there.

    Always nice to be proven correct. Such a sad thing to be proven correct about the destruction of America, however.
  • rkba4everrkba4ever Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Very sad to see, #1, very sad indeed that so may care so little for liberty. For whatever reason, they feel certain portions are no longer valid and thus push us to the precipice of libertarian oblivion. I for one may not be able to stop the slide of the "slippery slope", but I will NOT go quietly into that good night..........
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Why, I am simply shocked and appalled at this ruling. I though we had an individual "right" to keep and bear arms (heavy sarcasm intended)!!!

    Who could have possibly foreseen such a clear and logical extension of the blessed SCROTUS ruling (heavy sarcasm intended).

    NO. 3, No. 5 and No. 1, who woulda thunk it?

    Pathetic, yet completely predictable.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Where are the cheerleaders now?

    Will they STILL cheer when ammo is the next target?


    I have learned to expect nothing less from the "SCROTUS". Seems to me, the political sytem has become the BANE of freedom. It's not just for standing armies anymore.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Little-Acorn;
    Thank you again for posting this. I put it over on General...and it on its way to a great Oak tree.
    Not tying to steal your thunder.
    I understand why you posted it here..but I have a thick skin, and if they poof it..so be it, was my thought.

    Meanwhile..a couple hundred people have read it and filed it away in their brains. They would be unable to just ignore it...and that 'Little Acorn' will grow.......
  • Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    It is unfathomable that this monumental verification of our 2nd Amendment Rights could be twisted in such a manner as to condone such restrictions.

    Keep in mind the composition of the Court that voted 5-4 for this ruling: Four law-abiding justices, four leftist scofflaws, and one weathervane who swings back and forth unpredictably.

    My guess is, Scalia wrote the opinion the way he did, to get the weathervane's (Kennedy's) vote. If he hadn't included language saying "reasonable restrictions" were OK and people only had a right to guns "in common usage", then we would have had a decision 5-4 the other way, saying that only militia members had any right to own gunz. Or worse, only militias collectively had any right to weapons, and all such weapons had to be locked up in armories and used only for "official militia purposes"..... you get the idea.

    Is that what you would have preferred? It's probably the only other choice available.

    Never forget how close the vote was.

    Never.

    BTW, if Obama is elected in November, the next gun case may well go that way after he makes an appoinment or two. If McCain is elected, then the next such case might throw out the "common usage" and "reasonable restrictions" BS, and get closer to a decision that upholds the Constitution.

    Sometimes I think that the "Iffen it ain't perfect then it ain't poop" crowd is as much our enemy as the leftist gun-grabbers.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:Sometimes I think that the "Iffen it ain't perfect then it ain't poop" crowd is as much our enemy as the leftist gun-grabbers.
    Well, good...then we can agree to face each other as common enemies, then...for I believe..and the facts prove it..that the 'compromise crowd' is the single greatest threat faced by freedom and gun owner freedom ever.

    Far better the court had banned guns then the mess of pottage they handed us.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    originally posted by Little-Acorn:

    BTW, if Obama is elected in November, the next gun case may well go that way after he makes an appoinment or two. If McCain is elected, then the next such case might throw out the "common usage" and "reasonable restrictions" BS, and get closer to a decision that upholds the Constitution.

    Sometimes I think that the "Iffen it ain't perfect then it ain't poop" crowd is as much our enemy as the leftist gun-grabbers.

    Acorn,

    Do not make the mistake of believing Senator McCain is an ally of the RTKBA; he has proven otherwise. I have no doubt that, if elected, McCain would push his "agenda of encroachment". If anything, the noose of "common usage" and "reasonable restrictions" would become tighter under a Mccain regime, as it would under Obama.

    The reason a few of us take the "If it ain't perfect...." stance is this. We believe the 2nd Amendment, 100%, as is. It affirms a "right." A right with restrictions and regulations attached is no right at all, but a privilege. 4473 forms, CCW permits, AWBs, full-auto bans, etc. are nothing but a blatant intrusion, and unlawful I might add. The powers that be expect us to follow the laws they prescribe, albeit many are unconstitutional, yet they fail to hold themselves to the "standard" which regulates them; the Constitution.

    All gun owners, to some degree, are affected by some of these unconstitutional usurpations, however, a few have chosen to remain unaffected by all of them. They have chosen to exercise their RTKBA as set forth in the BOR, and simply ignore many of the encroachments upon it. It is called civil disobedience, and it is an attribute you will find in any true patriot. Many gun owners (the ones who are willing to accept "reasonable" and "common-sense" restrictions) will decry these acts, and wail, "But that, that is against the law!" It's nothing of the sort. It is well within the law; the Constitution, and many of those who cry foul do so out of envy, for they lack the backbone of the man who truly knows what freedom and individual liberty really mean.
  • DucksterDuckster Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Fincher was a putz and a loser. He's the one causing potentially precedent-setting legal problems for the rest of us now. All because he had to be such a tool.
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Fincher was trying to own illegal unregistered machine guns by using the Heller decision afirming the second amendment. These guns were illegal by the 1934 laws. For your post to be truthfull we would have to see them take away a registered machine gun to a legal owner because of the Heller decision.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    originally posted by steve45:

    Fincher was trying to own illegal unregistered machine guns

    These guns were illegal by the 1934 laws.


    Yet another example of unlawful usurpations over the rights of the people, and those "rights" being converted to "privileges."

    1934 "laws"? How about 1934 encroachments.

    by using the Heller decision afirming the second amendment.

    News flash. Heller vs. DC decision DID NOT affirm our RTKBA; it only weakened them.

    For your post to be truthfull we would have to see them take away a registered machine gun to a legal owner because of the Heller decision.


    Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with what I've highlighted in bold?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with what I've highlighted in bold?
    No, it isn't just you WS.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Just the graphic, stark difference between an American...and a New American is all, Firedude.

    Summed up nicely in a few paragraphs.

    Gun controllers, being bottom feeders, see nothing save for the few crumbs thrown their way by their feeders...

    The words, "illegal machine gun", evokes warm fuzzy feelings of security and greed to the New American.

    It evokes fury in the belly of an American.
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The whole topic of this thread is that the Heller decision enabled the government to take away someones guns. The logic is flawed because the guns taken away were'nt legal before Heller either. If the Heller decision is bad then you should'nt have to lie about it.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    The whole topic of this thread is that the Heller decision enabled the government to take away someones guns. The logic is flawed because the guns taken away were'nt legal before Heller either.

    HMMMM. I've never read anything in the 2nd, or the rest of the Constitution for that matter, that deals with which firearms are illegal.
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The constitution does'nt say that murder is illegal either. It left that for furure lawmakers to decide and define.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    The constitution does'nt say that murder is illegal either. It left that for furure lawmakers to decide and define.

    Ever hear of "common law"?

    And oh, by the way, the founders did not leave "rights" for discussion for future lawmakers to decide. The 2nd amendment contains the clause, "...shall not be infringed." This simply means that the "right" of the people to keep and bear arms shall remain free from any goverment intrusion. Period.
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The same men who wrote the constitution continued writing laws long after it was finished. They knew that it was a framework, and they gave congress the right to modify it.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    Congress has been given no authority at all to restrict or regulate the RTKBA, in fact, the opposite is true. The Founders made clear their intent in the wording of the 2nd, to ensure that no government or entity could remove the right of the people to secure their liberties, by force, if necessary.
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Article 5, the amendment process of the Constitution provides no safety for the second amendment.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by steve45
    The constitution does'nt say that murder is illegal either. It left that for furure lawmakers to decide and define.


    Learn the difference between "Malum Prohibitum" and "Malum En Se" crimes.

    It may prove enlightening and it is directly applicable to your comment.[;)]

    Also a listen to the JPFO "Governemnt Keep Out" series may be in order for some "perspective.

    http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/keepoutspeeches.htm
  • RogueStatesmanRogueStatesman Member Posts: 5,760
    edited November -1
    I see no one addressed the following argument:

    Why aren't machine guns used by law-abiding citizens?? Because THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO LEGALLY OBTAIN Machine Guns. How could we use them if we can't have them?? If we had access outside the regulatory "tax stamp" and extreme pricing wars due to supply and demand, the majority of us "law-abiding citizens" would own machine guns. And we probably wouldn't be reading this F'd up decision by this stupid court. Hell for that matter, a lot of things would be different!!

    Copied from original post:
    The 8th Circuit cited language in Heller that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and said a machine gun falls into that unprotected category. "Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use," the appeals court said.
  • DucksterDuckster Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Actually no Right is absolute or was meant to be by the drafters of the Constitution. Every right that you have--speech, property ownership, the right against self-incrimination or search and seizure, all can be overridden by the government in situations where the government demonstrates a compelling interest and shows that the action taken by the government is the least harmful path. Gun rights are no different.

    It's too bad that this forum--and most others related to guns--are infested with people who think that the Constitution begins and ends with gun rights. But the truth is, the founders wanted a government--one that, while respecting individual rights, could still trump them when it absolutely had to. It has to be that way for any government to work and they knew that even if some people don't get it today.

    In 1934, machine guns were regulated because of their widespread use by criminals. The regulation stopped short of an absolute ban and sought only to control who could and could not acquire and possess them. Since then, crimes committed by people with machine guns have become rarities, and the fact that someone can be stopped in advance of committing one and locked up just for possessing one outside of the available channels is a big help.

    Now people can still own machine guns. I have several myself. All legal, all registered, and all mine. And I don't have a problem with background checks on owners and controls designed to insure that they aren't just sold off willy-nilly to any fool. The rest of the public has a right to be safe and that trumps the right of any one person to own anything and everything that he wants without any government oversight, including hand grenades, rocket launchers, asnthrax spores, dynamite, and machine guns.

    Don't like it? Move to Somalia and you can have all the machine guns that you want. Or get good jobs and buy them through lawful channels here in my country.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Thanks, feller;
    I always think that the Beast ought to be represented also, in any discussion.
    Most anti-gunners don't have the courage to plainly state their position...being too cowardly.
    You are a breath of fresh air.
  • DucksterDuckster Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I always think that the Beast ought to be represented also, in any discussion.
    ...


    Did you fall on your head as a child too?
  • rkba4everrkba4ever Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Duckster
    Or get good jobs and buy them through lawful channels here in my country.

    You can't in every state. Some states, like here in NY won't let you have them - no matter whether you could pass a background check or not. So where does that leave me? Unable to get one through your "lawful channels". A clear infringement on the founders vision for the second amendment.
  • DucksterDuckster Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by rkba4ever

    You can't in every state. Some states, like here in NY won't let you have them - no matter whether you could pass a background check or not. So where does that leave me? Unable to get one through your "lawful channels". A clear infringement on the founders vision for the second amendment.



    Well that vision doesn't control. what controls today is what 200 years of case law and legislation that was passed by the people's elected representatives says. That's the truth of the matter. This isn't the founders' society today. It's ours. We control today, not a bunch of guys who died two centuries ago. And they meant for us to decide our own laws, which is why they wrote the Constitution to allow that freedom for future generations.

    But if your state doesn't allow some things, that falls under the heading of States' Rights, something else that our founders were really in favor of.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    I reckon I slept thru all those states voting to amend the BOR, allowing for federal and state infringment of 'shall not be infringed'.

    But what do you care, beast-lover.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I reckon I slept thru all those states voting to amend the BOR, allowing for federal and state infringment of 'shall not be infringed'.

    But what do you care, beast-loverTORY.


    Fixed it for you, friend.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    originally posted by Duckster:

    Well that vision doesn't control. what controls today is what 200 years of case law and legislation that was passed by the people's elected representatives says. That's the truth of the matter. This isn't the founders' society today. It's ours. We control today, not a bunch of guys who died two centuries ago. And they meant for us to decide our own laws, which is why they wrote the Constitution to allow that freedom for future generations.

    Dumpster,

    Let me give you a little insight on that "bunch of guys who died two centuries ago."

    Those men (and they were, in every sense of the word), understood something about freedom and liberty that you and I cannot fathom. They fully understood that if their efforts failed, not only would liberty die, but they would die with it. Many did, but due to their efforts, freedom was secured. After having just fought an oppressive government, they took steps to ensure that, if the future government of America ever became as the one they just fought, the people would have the means to "throw it off", and "alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

    The principle means to effect this would be to affirm that "the people" would always have the right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the 2nd Amendment, specifically "the right", was no accident. The Founders (you know, the bunch of guys who died two centuries ago) knew all too well how oppressive goverments can be and how oppressive they can become. I believe the Founders knew beyond all doubt that eventually, evil would creep into the leadership of this Republic. They were 100% correct, and it shows they possessed great wisdom. They knew the difference between a "right" and a "privilege."

    I know this is not popular with gun owners who willingly accept "common sense" or "reasonable" restrictions, but the Founders neither intended nor approved of any government restriction/regulation of our rights, including the RTKBA.

    Dumpster, you may consider your "perversion" of the Founders to be accurate, but it is my belief that had you been alive during that time, you would have been tarred and feathered.
  • rkba4everrkba4ever Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Spot on wsfiredude, spot on. Never far from the mark,though, are ya [;)]
  • DucksterDuckster Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You squirrels won't fight to any death. Big-talkers like you guys are always the first to fold and run. It's always been that way and always will be. It's easy to talk trash when you know that you're never going to have the chance to put up, but even if your fantasies did come true and a civil war broke out, the first bullet that cracks overhead will send every wanna-be warrior and faux patriot on this thread scampering off leaving a trail of poop behind.

    I know real warriors. Ain't any (besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works. You can't fix stupid so I don't try.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:and how our government works
    I am quite sure you could go on for hours and hours about this subject.

    Unfortunately, I fear ordinary citizens would get so violently sick to their stomach with the corruption, sleaze, and crawling maggots all over the tale they would be unable to continue listening.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    originally posted by Dumpster:

    I know real warriors. Ain't any (besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works.

    Heh Heh. Imbecile.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:I know real warriors. Ain't any [besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works. You can't fix stupid so I don't try.

    When ever you feel froggy. You talk like you are quite something. I am sure you are ONLY impressing yourself. You really wouldn't want to tangle with me.

    For someone who claims to know so much, you quickly resort to name calling because you can't win the arguement. Is it past your bedtime yet? Is momma calling you for supper?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    quote:I know real warriors. Ain't any [besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works. You can't fix stupid so I don't try.

    When ever you feel froggy. You talk like you are quite something. I am sure you are ONLY impressing yourself. You really wouldn't want to tangle with me.

    For someone who claims to know so much, you quickly resort to name calling because you can't win the arguement. Is it past your bedtime yet? Is momma calling you for supper?


    [:D][:D][:D]
  • 45long45long Member Posts: 642 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This is the first time in months that I have posted to this forum. I feel compeled to as a result of reading the arogance and ignorance of Duckbutts posts. It is clear that he is a fairweather friend of gun rights. He has the ability to buy Automatic weapons and pay the fees involoved and thinks he is so pro gun for doing so. What he fails to realize,(and what we all know) is that one day, at the drop of a hat, the same Gov. that he he believes has the final say in all things, can and someday will knock on his door and take all his little machine guns and with a tip of the hat be gone. More over. He will probably thank them for protecting his dumb * from himself. Duckbutt is also the guy that we all must watch closley as he would turn in anyone of us to gain favor from the Gov. He is no friend of true RTKBA supporters.

    He said something to the effect that the 1934 restrictions on machine guns was in answer to the criminal element using such weapons in crimes they commited. But he failed to tell us how many of these major criminal syndicates turned in their machine guns. Capone? Segal? Kelly? Any of them ? I don't think so. Reading historical accounds of those times I believe they all kept their machine guns. And I still see many drive by accounts of Ak-47s being used today in street gangs. Doesn't seem to be a very effective restriction does it? Not in terms of crime control or reduction.

    Oh and Duckbutt, the ONLY reason constitutional rights are not absolute is because of people like you. People who are so willing to go along to get a long. People who have been incrementalized to the point of non-existence. And I'm not saying that the rest are any better or worse. Because we all have to obey the law to a certain point. But at some point, that line will be crossed. Where will you be when that day comes? Only you can answer that for sure. But I have a pretty good idea.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Welcome back, 45Long...and a resounding 'Barroooom' from that fine old round, it is, Indeed !! HEAR that 'SMACK'...AS IT HITS HOME ON ITS TARGET !!

    Proud..that is the only word I can say. We have some of the finest men in the world posting on this forum. Certainly a pleasure to be allowed to associate with men understanding what keeps America free.
Sign In or Register to comment.