![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - September 19 2003 : 8:03:40 PM
|
Right off, I am betting many ask what is the linkage in that title.
Well, I'll get there, but first I have to tell a little story.
This week I received an email from a guy in Australia. He had seen our discussion on Killdeer and wanted to know if I could send him a tracing of the stock profile. He wanted to make a "wall hanger" (non-functioning) replica of Killdeer. I told him I'd be happy to send him a tracing. During the discussion, he relayed that it has to be non-working, as the gun laws in Australia now disallow him to have a WORKING gun....even flintlock. And, he cannot import a flintlock lock - has to use one he has parts for already, that is not correct but what the heck. Right? He plans to use a steel tube and grind it down to octagon. Use other bits and pieces of stuff he has lying around realizing it won't be totally correct but feels it isnt worth the risk trying to import "gun parts" under the new laws.
Pretty sad huh? Especially for you reenactors, eh? How would any of you wonderful people engaging in living history and keep out heritage alive feel if we could not even possess a FLINTLOCK rifle?
Don't know when the last time was anybody used 18th century firearms technology to rob a bank, invade a home, carjack somebody, mug somebody, do a drive by (Hey Juan, go REAL slow past this guys house.......I only got one shot man, and I need time for the flash to set off the main charge, ya know?)
And yet, and anti-2nd Ammendment and civilian disarmament folks (such as Violence Policy Center, Brady Bunch, Handgun Control, etc) hold up Australia as the model and the goal for firearms legislation in THIS country. They have publicly, and many times, talked about how enlightened and wonderful is Australia's gun laws, and how reasonable, and how great it would be if WE rabid gun nuts would just get outta the way and let them institute those kinda laws HERE.
Why? Will it stop all those nasty drive bys and carjackings? Hell, let Juan have his flintlock, just make the flint vendor register all the flints, and disallow anybody with a history of felonies, misdeamenors, mental health or drug use from buying or possessing the flints. We can institute a Flint Tracing Archive, and force all the flint manufacturers to strike each flint against a frizzen, then turn in that frizzen to the Government database so that if that flint is dropped during a crime we can trace it back to the flint knapper, search his records and find out to which vendor it was sold, then go search the vendor's records and find out to whom the individual flint was sold........and NAIL the guy! YAY! Crime stoppers look out! We got a plan! Oh but wait.........hmmmmm......each time the flint strikes, it is worn somewhat so the imprint changes........hmmmmm....well hell, who cares about the cost or the validity.....it'll make folks FEEL good and FEEL safe, and FEEL like we are doing something to protect them.
So what does any of this have to do with the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution? Nothing and everything. Nothing because the 2nd Ammendment is NOT about protecting our right to own flintlocks for reenactments, or rifles for deer hunting, or shotguns for duck hunting, or a handgun for home/personal protection (though that makes a lot of sense). The 2nd Ammendment is NOT about any of that.
The anti-gun socialists want you to believe the 2nd Ammendment is outmoded and unnecessary and stands in the way of eradicating violent crime. That's bull. The 2nd Ammendment stands in the way of disarming the citizenry. Period. Why?
Well, I'll tell you. And it's simple.
More citizens have been killed by their constituted GOVERNMENTS in the last 100 years than have been murdered by criminals in the 500 or 600 years gunpowder has been used to drive a projectile.
Oh! You say, but that can't ever happen HERE!!! Oh no? Ask the next Native American you see. They were in the way of a constituted government, OUR constituted
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 19 2003 : 8:30:37 PM
|
And addendum:
Three times in the history of the United States laws were imposed making it illegal to sell firearms to individuals or groups.
The British put an embargo on arms and materials of war, and instituted a blockade. They attempted to confiscate arms lawfully possessed by citizens of their colony. They did so to quell our strongly felt opinions of liberty and justice.
It was a VERY serious crime to sell or give or transfer in any way, a firearm to a black person in this country. Particularly in the southern section of our country. Those laws were enacted and enforced by a recognized, legally constituted government. Their great fear was that the blacks, so mistreated and enslaved, would rise up in rebellion. Obviously. The intent was to keep them enslaved.
It was in many regions and different times illegal to sell, give or transfer to Native Americans any firearms. These laws were in force and enforced during a particular time in our history......that time during which our legally constituted government intended to exercise it's "manifest destiny". Native Americans were in the way. It was, let none forget, GOVERNMENT policy to eradicate them en mass if they would not voluntarily go to Gulags (we called them reservations). Various ugly quotes could be given of official government policy regarding this matter, literally talking about the extermination of a people.
Three times in the history of our nation it was government policy to keep a segment of our population disarmed, for ominous reasons and with ugly intent.
Does it not frighten anybody that we now are in a fourth period where there is an ongoing drive to disarm the ENTIRE population?
It should. It really, really should. Other times it occurred it in the history of our country it did not bode well for those so targeted with disarmament. |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 19 2003 : 8:41:35 PM
|
Bill, what you need is an interest you can be passionate about... no more of this wishy-washy-milk-toast kind of posting. Just be brave, come right out with it and lay it on the line... OK?
(P.S. In all seriousness, I agree with you completely.) |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Hawkeye_Joe
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 31 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 19 2003 : 9:27:58 PM
|
Another little sidenote, Did anyone else know that our non-gun owning brothers in the UK "borrowed" boatloads of USA privately owned weapons in the early days of WWII? The call went out to all freedom loving Americans, read US citizens here, to donate their guns to Britain in their "Hour of Need" to stem the invasion of the British Isles by the Nazis. After disarming their population they "Needed" us to provide weapons so their citizens could fight back to save their country. We did...we sent hundreds of guns to England...most of which were taken back by their Government after the "need" was past and destroyed..not sent back to us mind you ...destroyed.
Another little known factoid...one reason the Japanese decided to never invaded the West Coast of the US in the early days of WWII is that they were aware of the private ownership of guns and did not want to get embroiled in a war where a lot of civilians had guns to fight back with.
Another thing.. Australia's crime rate has not gone down since the gun ban.. it has actually risen..not murders ..but crimes against the unarmed public has more than doubled.... |
HAWK
"The scum of every nation gravitates to the frontier."
Benjamin Franklin 1750
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for
lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin 1759
The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, "I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it."
"Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
susquesus
Mad Hermit of the North Woods
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 03 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 19 2003 : 11:14:17 PM
|
| I agree guys, especially the bit about the Japanese not invading the west coast. I hadn't heard that before but I remember after September 11th when all the nightmare scenarios were running through my head thinking that anyone that made a serious effort to invade our country wouldn't have to worry about the military so much as the populous. Say we were weakened to the point that the military couldn't respond,(I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) say North Korea or the Jihadists pulled something spectacular off, forget it--the citizenry, from the rural folks down to the urban centers could put up one hell of a resistance for a long, long time. Barring a Russian first strike 15 years ago the 2nd Amendment makes us doubly formidable as an enemy. Thanks for making the point so eloquently. I'll lay off the doomsday stuff now. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 20 2003 : 09:07:09 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by susquesus
I agree guys, especially the bit about the Japanese not invading the west coast. I hadn't heard that before but I remember after September 11th when all the nightmare scenarios were running through my head thinking that anyone that made a serious effort to invade our country wouldn't have to worry about the military so much as the populous. Say we were weakened to the point that the military couldn't respond,(I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) say North Korea or the Jihadists pulled something spectacular off, forget it--the citizenry, from the rural folks down to the urban centers could put up one hell of a resistance for a long, long time. Barring a Russian first strike 15 years ago the 2nd Amendment makes us doubly formidable as an enemy. Thanks for making the point so eloquently. I'll lay off the doomsday stuff now.
This reminds me of the lyrics to "In America" by Charlie Daniels. I think you're right, susquesus.  |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 21 2003 : 9:01:31 PM
|
Altough I've mentioned it before, most of you may not be aware that in terms of internet boards, I come from a "swords" background, which was, in fact how I originally landed on this site several years ago now.
I personally have an interest in guns and am a staunch supporter of 2nd Amendment rights.
However, many sword folks do not and are not.
One Sword Forum in which I participate has banned discussion of firearms because it often gets around to this issue and leads to rather heated discussions, especially on an international forum.
For those of you who aren't aware, Australia instituted very strict gun laws a few years ago that effectively banned several types of guns that are perfectly legal over here.
They've also been working on knives for a while.
In spite of this, I've had to listen to Australian sword folks and re-enactors, even some of those who are gunowners, justify their government's policies and tell Americans who attempted to offer support and feedback that they are arrogant and don't understand the cultural differences.
Well, the state of Victoria is even as we speak attempting to enact legislation that would place swords (and crossbows) in the "restricted weapons" category, which to all intents and purposes is a ban.
We're starting to here a slightly different tune from the Australian sword folk, though they still are very reluctant to rock the boat or present the case to the media.
In fact, the only real media concern that I've seen (and I've looked) is regarding young people who do Highland Sword Dancing, and would no longer be able to have swords to do it with! |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 23 2003 : 01:11:42 AM
|
quote:
And yet, and anti-2nd Ammendment and civilian disarmament folks (such as Violence Policy Center, Brady Bunch, Handgun Control, etc) hold up Australia as the model and the goal for firearms legislation in THIS country. They have publicly, and many times, talked about how enlightened and wonderful is Australia's gun laws, and how reasonable, and how great it would be if WE rabid gun nuts would just get outta the way and let them institute those kinda laws HERE.
I agree with you Bill, if the above folks feel that envious of the "Land Down Under", let them pack up their emotional baggage and move there. Speaking as a street cop, with more than a few years of walking a beat, I can tell you first hand that THE best protection against an armed threat is the threat of retaliation. As the Romans once said, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war".
Most of my clients stated openly, during the interview process, that they would not go after potential targets if that target appeared to be armed. Now some of you might wonder, "Gee sarge, if the weapon is concealed, how can the criminal tell that the potential victim is armed?" Well, it is hard to put into words, but those of us who are in the profession of arms, know to look for certain signs. Not just the cliche "bulge in the pocket", but more importantly how a person carries themselves, if the appear to subconciously 'guard' a certain part of their person, these and other clues tell a cop if someone is carrying a concealed weapon (whether legally or illegally is not known at this point). Now if us cops can tell this, and it is not a subject covered well enough in the police academy, certainly some guy who has spent some time in the system can recognize the same signs. But I am getting off subject, so please forgive me for the detour.
In a nutshell, the armed citizen is the first line of defense. Out of a nation of 250 million, there are less than 400,000 cops, not exactly good odds. Most of the time, we get to the scene after, not during, a violent crime. So we welcome a little help fro the un-organized militia of the United States. Who are they, you ask? Well, if you are a law-abiding citizen, over 18 years of age, it is you!
Now I know that some of you had read in the past of certain police chiefs supporting restrictive gun ownership. These are chiefs of police, politically appointed, who will dance to whatever tune their master plays. I do not have such bounds on me, I got my job through competitive testing and it is protected by civil service regulations (therefore protecting the citizens from having a police force 'owned' by political leaders, as opposed to the citizenry which it was designed to protect). Being said, my oath was not only to enforce the law, but to more importantly, protect the rights of the citizen. This includes the rights listed in the U.S. Constitution, including the (gasp!) Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
One more thing to mull over, if the right to firearm ownership was not that important to our founding fathers, why did they place it above all except freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly?
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 23 2003 : 11:55:36 AM
|
Right on target Sarge, and good post! Great to hear from somebody in REAL law enforcement.
And you are correct - the Sherrifs are politically appointees and do the bidding of their masters. Wisconsin is again trying to get a bill up for vote for concealed carry. We are one of only 6 states without such a law. Last year the bill passed in the Assembly, and after Senate leadership promised a vote on last day of business to the sponsor, the leadership cynically and outrageously connived to end business and adjourn before the vote could be taken. The Senate WAS controlled by the Dems, of course. That cost them. This year the Senate and Assembly are both Republican majorities. We have a chance, though the Dem Governor is on record as vetoeing any such bill.
Be that as it may, whenever the subject comes up on the "news" they ALWAYS go talk to the Dane County Sherrif for his views and NEVER talk to a beat cop or a city cop. Why? Because, as you said, he is a political appointee who mouths the agenda of those who appointed him, and has the right view in the eyes of the liberal media. HE always gets the last word. The last word two nights ago was that the Sheriff department does not HAVE the information necessary to process applications for a carry license and it would cost too much and require too many staff to do so. LIE. BIG LIE. The requirements for carry in the bill are as follows: must not have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors of violence or be under indictment for any, must not have a history of drug use, must not have a history of mental health, and must have attended firearms training. He says he does not have that information. Bull. That is the very SAME information required if you BUY any kind of firearm in this state. So how come he has it, or can get it, for all the firearms SALES in this state, but NOT for approving a carry permit?
There ya go. The antis have an agenda supported by lies, fears, connivance, distorted statistics, and a larger secret agenda we should all fear. It is an often quoted fact on the news media that the Wisconsin Sheriff's Departments do NOT support the carry law. They NEVER state the fact that ALL the municipal police departments DO support the law, and those organizations and unions have gone on record as supporting the law.
Thanks for your input Sarge! Be careful out there!
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 23 2003 : 12:31:24 PM
|
Sgt Munro can verify or dispute these following points as one who has been on the street enforcing the law:
The antis consistently pound the following arguments against a carry law:
(1) it makes cops even more unsafe in their jobs
(2) there will be OK corral type shootouts on the street
(3) crime goes up not down
(4) we don't need a carry law because it is the cop's job to protect us.
There are more, but those are the main aguments against, and all are lies and not proven out by statistics
Taking them one at a time:
(1) a carry law actually makes the beat cop MORE safe. Those with a permit to carry have already been vetted prior to issuance, and a database is kept. When a cop pulls me over, he can determine from the database if I have a carry permit and know up front if I might be armed when he approaches. Moreover, I MUST inform him if I am carrying whenever a cop stops me or approaches me. It makes it more likely if he sees I AM carrying concealed, and I have not shown up as such in his routine call-in for warrants etc, that I likely AM carrying illegally. Also, it has been proven that those states with a carry law have drops in car jackings and armed robberies on the street as criminals don't know who might be carrying and who is not - and often discover to their chagrin their victim is able to defend himself/herself - thereby taking many of them off the street one way or the other.
(2) There are not OK corral shootouts on the street due to a state having a carry law. Those cities and states that refuse to allow carry laws DO have OK corral shootouts DAILY - in the form of drive-bys, gang activity, rampant murder and robbery stats, and so forth. THOSE places have the HIGHEST such incidence which do not allow even POSSESSION of handguns. Hmmmmm. How about THAT? It is proven that states WITH CCW have DROPS in those stats. And NO state that has ever issued such permissions, has EVER tried to revoke it and repeal it.
(3). The criminals already have access to guns, and carry them regardless of laws. When lawful citizens are given the same ability, armed crimes go DOWN. It's just common sense. The bully does NOT pick on the guy who will fight back. Most criminals are basically cowards - they WANT the upper hand, and if they don't think they have it, they don't strike.
(4) As sarge so adequately put it, there are not enough cops to be able to stop every crime. They can't be everywhere. It's impossible. Most times, they get there AFTER the crime has gone down. Moreover, they are NOT chartered to PREVENT crime. They are chartered to investigate crime and answer calls of crimes in progress. They are NOT responsible for preventing them. How could they be? It is YOUR God given right to protect your OWN life and property. THAT is YOUR responsibility ultimately.
Just some points about the antis main arguments against CCW and guns in general.
Ever notice the antis rarely address HOW to keep the guns outta the hands of the gang bangers, and repeat offenders who already have them and would get them somehow illegally anyway? Mostly, they are just concerned with keeping the guns outta the hands of YOU, the lawful citizen. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 23 2003 : 2:25:48 PM
|
quote:
Sgt Munro can verify or dispute these following points as one who has been on the street enforcing the law:
Bill, there is nothing to dispute, for you have reached your conclusion via the facts (not to mention logical reasoning as opposed to the knee-jerk emotional outbursts of our opponents to freedom), and much to the chagrin of the Anti-Freedom crowd, the facts do not lie. It is concerned and armed citizens like you that make my job easier, not harder. I salute men like you who are willing to defend family, hearth and home, for it was men like you that helped build our great nation. If 250 years ago, people like Sarah Brady, Tom Daschle, Bill & Hillary, Ted "Submarine Commander" Kennedy and their ilk comprised the majority of Colonial Subjects, our fate would be that of Canada or Austrailia today. Instead of being a beacon of freedom and self-determination, we would be yet another socialist nest of entitlement leeches.
On the subject of the Sheriff of Nottingham, *cough*, I mean Dane County, I have some suggestions. Here in Allegheny County (PA), our Sheriff Pete DeFazio actually made moves to speed up the issuance of "Permit to Carry Firearms" requests. His deputies now use an instant background check (via NCIC computer, which every law enforcement agency in the U.S. has access to, since the 1970's) and issue the permit on a photo-card format. A process that used to take up to twelve weeks, now takes twelve minutes. This improvement actually demands less staff and man-hours, and a cost savings to the taxpayers (in more ways than one). His men are now free to go out and actively pursue criminals with the other cops of the county. All in all it is a win for the citizenry and a big warning to the criminals.
Here in Pennsylvania, Allegheny County specifically, we have had concealed carry for many years, and what do you know, no "OK Corral" style shoot-outs. We did, however, have a young lady shoot and kill a serial rapist in Pittsburgh's East End, last year. She was not a cop or a fed, just a regular hard working citizen whose action stopped not only her rape, but the countless furure attrocities that this animal would have commited. Once again, "Front Sight, Trigger Squeeze and Breathing Contol" defeated evil.
In the words of another Pennsylvanian, "Those who whish to trade liberty for security, deserve neither".
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 23 2003 : 3:14:28 PM
|
Pennsy helped me, Sarge! I got my out of state Pennsylvania carry permit from Denny Nau Sheriff of Centre County. I can carry in Pa and any state with reciprocity - but unfortunately NOT in Wisconsin as yet. Maybe someday. Soon, I hope. My two sons plan on getting their carry permits from the counties they are residents of...but first they want to join local gun clubs and train well in their use before applying. Yeah, we nuts who want to carry are really irresponsible idjits, aren't we? Denny Nau was very responsive and personalized in his application procedures for non-resident permits.
Cudos to him.
By the way, the Sheriff of Dane County knows well about NCICs. He has an agenda against which is why he conveniently "forgot" to mention that availability and use on a daily basis. Likewise, the media has their agenda also, which is why the let that lie go by, and didnt bother to dispute or research it. That's the problem.....most folks hear the lies and believe them because that is all they hear.....and it comes from the "trustworthy" media. Media people for the most part are educated and not stupid - therefore they gotta know the lies they pass on to us. We, as a nation, should be very fearful and hold suspect ANY agenda that requires lies and subterfuge to make it pallatable. More than that, when those agendas go against common sense and are so fraught with such lies and obvious holes in the inherent logic, the entire nation should be asking itself what the REAL purposes of the agendas are. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 24 2003 : 06:08:34 AM
|
Despite posting on this subject many times before (I think the whole world knows my views now!!) I will chip in my twopennyworth just in the interests of providing another angle to the debate!
There are two issues that leap out at me here from the post and responses. First, the issue of a country's culture....very important to include this in a gun control debate (and so I guess to a certain extent, I agree with Scott's Australian Swordsmen!). The culture of my country is very different to that of the US - we have not grown up with firearms, we do not own them or use them as part of our lives. We still have a police force that does not carry firearms (excluding the special units, of course). A firearm related crime or incident is still huge news here because it is rare. The expectation when one walks down the street is that nobody is carrying a firearm, and that the worst crime you can expect on your person is that involving bodily force, or at worst, a knife. These are facts...and facts that I like. I do not wish to feel the need to own a firearm for protection...and as yet, I do not feel that need. However, if I were to move to the US, more likely than not, I would very quickly go out and get some sort of firearms training, and purchase a weapon for protection. It would be impossible to change a culture overnight, or even over the course of years, and to attempt to do so by changing legislation is a pipe dream. To change what is not working within a certain environment, one needs to understand that environment, and then put practical measures in place that work within that environment. Stringent rules on registration, storage, manufacturers responsibilities, weapon classification etc etc are all common sense measures.
The second issue follows on from that and is about legislation and government practice. Governments (and I think this is not culture-specific!) tend to tackle problems by making sweeping gestures without taking into account the smaller issues that could make that gesture fail before it is even in place. It is that simplistic 'guns kill - lets get rid of the guns' attitude. It's a complete waste of time. The case that Bill has posted about, is a classic example of this. It makes a mockery of the purpose of the legislation, which in itself is worthy.
It is far too simplistic to view gun control as an isolated issue. It isn't. The starting point should be to improve (or maintain) a culture whereby citizens do not feel the need to have protection other than that provided by the police force. In order to do that, one would have to tackle problems in all areas of society....drug abuse, bad parenting, early diagnosis and treatment of the mentally ill, crime and punishment, ineffective understaffed police forces, offender rehabilitation, education, employment and so on. These are all contributory factors - and these should be the priority for any government, before the issue of gun-related crime can be tackled effectively. In answer to one of Bill's points, THAT is the way to reduce the illegal firearm issue.
Just to finish....as I said in an earlier post...I think it would be a great deal more productive if the two sides in the gun debate weren't at such extremes. If the 'pros' and antis' could recognise their common enemy and work together to the one common goal of reducing gun-related crime, they might be a formidable force. As long as they contine seeing each other as the enemy...the criminals are laughing.
HM
PS Completely aside....Billy, I have a photo that you might get a kick out of! On my latest trip to the US, I got my little, gun-virginal Brit-hands on an M-16! I must send Rich the photographic evidence to post the proof! Am having picture blown up..with caption 'Make My Day' on it, to go next to my 'Beware of the Dog' sign o |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 24 2003 : 09:07:06 AM
|
quote:
The expectation when one walks down the street is that nobody is carrying a firearm, and that the worst crime you can expect on your person is that involving bodily force, or at worst, a knife. These are facts...and facts that I like.
Adele, speaking as someone who had lived in your country for three years (1986-1989, RAF Mildenhall & RAF Woodbridge), I can attest that the violent crime rate with firearms was somewhat lower, but not by very much. When one includes factors as population, immigration rate and criminal activity reporting systems, the numbers change alot. If, for instance, the UK's population, land mass, criminal reporting system and immigration rate were equal to the U.S., you would find a great deal of pairity in the rate of firearms-related crimes. This is a fact. For example, in the U.S., suicides are included as homicides in most states reporting systems (my state included), for the overall "raw" number. This is not the case in the UK. Alot of firearms related crimes in the UK are listed under terrorism, if the actor is connected to a terrorist group, like the IRA. This is the case, even if it was a 'street crime' that he was involved in.
As far as cops not carrying firearms, well there you are right, but there seems to be a trend on 'enlarging' said special firearms units (this I know firsthand, speaking last year with some London MPF exchange officers) in large metropolitan areas (i.e. London). Another item of intrest, at both Heathrow and Gatwick, the cops there carry firearms, MP-5 submachine guns, as well as assorted sidearms and wear threat level 4 body armor (something that you see only at one U.S. airport, and only since 9-11, and those 5 officers are part of a special response unit, not general patrol, and that story was so 'shocking' that it made the national news). Not to mention the regular army providing back-up with their SA-80 automatic rifles (it was still called the L85-A1, when I served over there, during the Brits transition from the old L1-A1 rifle). In the U.S., national guard units of the states were pulled out last year, and most of them carried only the M-9 Beretta automatic pistol (which did not have a loaded magaizine in the weapon), as opposed to their regular issued M-16A2 rifles.
As far as culture goes, the concept of the freeholder defending his home with 'sword in hand' is absolutely British, and dating back to the Magna Carta. Unfortunately, your country lost this warrior spirit sometime after World War 1. Prime Minister Chruchill attempted to revive it during the early years of World War 2, with his 'Rifle in every cottage' concept. The rifles, had to be supplied by their American 'cousins', since the Birmingham Trade was busy equiping a serverly shrunken army. For a while, the British Subject once again lived as a free armed defender, then the war ended and the politicians hurried to disarm these potential 'criminals'.
In my country the right to firearm ownership has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or even criminal protection. It is there to protect a free citizen from an oppressive government. It is the 'reset button' to the constitution so to speak. As Thomas Jefferson once noted, "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants". It sounds strange that I, a government employee, would feel that way. But, I am employed by a local government, with strong connections to those who consent to be governed. My authority as a police officer is only there because the citizens of my county have entrusted it to me, and it is a trust that I take very seriously. It is always a strong central, or federal government that frightens me, because those people could care less about me as an individual or as part of my community. A |
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 24 2003 : 11:29:51 AM
|
Hi Adele! Good to see you back!
I only want to respond to one of your points, as Sarge has done so well on them all.
You state:
"It is far too simplistic to view gun control as an isolated issue. It isn't. The starting point should be to improve (or maintain) a culture whereby citizens do not feel the need to have protection other than that provided by the police force. In order to do that, one would have to tackle problems in all areas of society....drug abuse, bad parenting, early diagnosis and treatment of the mentally ill, crime and punishment, ineffective understaffed police forces, offender rehabilitation, education, employment and so on. These are all contributory factors - and these should be the priority for any government, before the issue of gun-related crime can be tackled effectively. In answer to one of Bill's points, THAT is the way to reduce the illegal firearm issue."
While this statement has merit on it's surface, and sounds quite reasonable, when taken to the ends it MUST be taken..........for it to work, it is AGAINST everything THIS country and Republic stands for.
Your statement right off says Government should change culture. NOT in THIS country. WE the people determine the culture of our country, not the other way around. Our government is not supposed to exist for, or be empowered to, CHANGE our culture. It is there to enable our culture to survive, thrive, and be what WE determine it to be. Period. That many liberals and Democrats think otherwise, is our problem. It is why the Democrats consistently talk of our form of government being a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.
Moreover, for Goverment to "solve" all those facets of society you mention, Goverment would have to be even MORE deeply involved in controlling our lives, our opinions, our personal solutions, our personal choices, our daily actions. Parenting implies the definition - PARENTing. Parents are, and should be, responsible for raising their children and teaching them values, respect, honesty, love of God and country, a desire to excel, and a thirst for knowlege. NOT Government. Whenever a society has given that responsibility over to a Government, you have Hitler Youth, Madame Mao's teenagers killing parents and elderly, etc. Ultimately.
As for the rest, WE don't ask Government to solve all our problems, and don't WANT government to solve all our problems. We rather would be responsible for our own actions, and determine our own actions. Government is far too much into our lives, controlling our lives, and dictating "pure thoughts" and making "impure thoughts" crimes already, thank you very much. Not consistent with a Constitutional Republic. Maybe with a Parliamentary Monarchy, but not here.
As sarge said, those against guns continually overlook the REASON for the 2nd Ammendment. It is NOT about crime, is NOT about hunting, is NOT about whether guns are nice or nasty, or individuals are peaceful or violent. IT IS ABOUT OPPRESSION OF THE PEOPLE BY THE GOVERNMENT. It is about the fact that as stated in an earlier post of mine FAR MORE CITIZENS HAVE BEEN MURDERED BY THEIR CONSTITUTED LEGAL GOVERNMENTS AS GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS OF OPPRESSION OR BIGOTRY than have ever been murdered by criminals one by one in the history of time. Period. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 24 2003 : 11:54:06 AM
|
Let me say it another way Adele, but let me preface it with this:
I love the English people. Next to Americans, they are the BEST people on earth! *said with tongue in cheek*.
I don't mean to critcize your form of government or your government's actions. Frankly, it's not my place to do so. That's for the English people to decide. Likewise, it is not for another nation to criticize OUR form of government. That's for US to decide.
And our form of government, chosen long ago, is a Constitutional Republic.
It is logical, and correct, to assume that our founding fathers - after winning a long and bloody war gaining the right to self-determination and the right to establish their OWN government and nation - said to themselves "How do we ensure OUR new government never becomes the oppressor of the people all other governments in the world have become at one time or another?" They asked themselves that very question.
Their answer was: We have to ensure the freedom to speak as we will, the freedom to associate with whomever we wish, the freedom to print what we will, worship as we wish - with NO curtailment by government. That's first. Secondly, we HAVE to ensure that our people are NEVER disarmed and have the freedom to possess arms. That is SECOND. For without the ability to ensure government can never curtail the first points, we cannot ensure government will never do so. At the time our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, many governments in the world DID keep their citizens disarmed. And many governments then, and now, oppressed their citizens and trampled on their individual rights. Government was whatever government said it would be. We were a NEW experiment - a NEW idea. A NEW way of thinking about the rights of the citizen - the individual - and the limitations on government. In order to ensure that experiment would succeed and perpetuate itself into history, we made certain rights inviolate to ensure our government would REMAIN a Constitutional Republic and NOT become what other governments were. The 2nd Ammendment and the right to keep and bear arms was central to that concept. And it still is.
In order to "get along in the world" we do not have to adopt the forms of government others have, and we do not wish to do so. Nor do we have to adopt the laws of other countries. We make our own.
We won that right in 1783 and do not plan to give it up. WE determine our path, our laws, our culture and our destiny. When TRUE individual freedom exists, some folks will abuse that trust and abuse that responsibility and use that freedom for selfish, illegal or immoral purposes. That goes with the concept of freedom. We don't believe you curtail freedoms in order to obtain peace. You punish those who use the freedoms to prey on others. I'd rather have a relative handful of criminals preying on society, than have a government preying on us all, thank you very much. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 24 2003 : 12:15:34 PM
|
The neatest trick the devil every did, was to convince people he didn't exist, they say.
And the neatest trick the antis and Dems ever did, was convince people the 2nd Ammendment was about protecting oneself from criminals.
The second neatest trick they ever did was convince folks the Consitution was a "living document" which it is, but include the Bill of Rights as part of that "living document" able to be changed, which it is NOT. Those rights supercede everything else in the Constitution and are NOT subject to change.
The drive to change them by some, may unfortunately require the tree of liberty to be watered with blood by all. If people here get upset by well meaning foreign nationals advocating such changes in OUR document, it is because it is OUR blood that will be shed, not theirs. And OUR freedoms lost, not theirs. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 24 2003 : 1:21:38 PM
|
Ok, so many points to address I don't know where to start!
Firstly, I think my point was missed about the government's need to tackle social issues eg parenting etc. I am not saying that this should be a dictate from the government. But you said "Parents are, and should be, responsible for raising their children and teaching them values, respect, honesty, love of God and country, a desire to excel, and a thirst for knowlege. NOT Government." I couldn't agree more...but the fact of the matter is...too many parents aren't! Why aren't they? Who steps in to prevent the downward spiral of bad parents raising even worse parents? As a society it is our obligation to protect and support our fellow man - and that is where the government comes in..determining funding for vital services for example. I am not talking about government control, I am referring to government support. And who is the government anyway? It is not some nameless faceless machine...it is supposed to be democratically elected representatives of the people. You say a government shouldn't change the culture of a country, but it is naturally going to, because it is made up of people that are part of the society in which you live. See my point?
Am not sure where your (Bill's) point came from about other countries dictating your laws and freedoms etc...out of the question. One of the reasons I strongly object to the way our own Prime Minister is taking my country into Europe.
To address a couple of points made by Sgt Munro. I am not sure exactly what you mean by 'warrior spirit', but will work off my first impression and say that I don't believe Britain has lost that spirit at all. I grew up in London during the height of terrorist activity and I can state quite categorically that the fighting spirit is still there. Maybe the Falklands conflict would be a better example? Your point is well made about borrowing firearms and arming the population during WW2, but nevertheless, in our current day, I think most people would feel that a rifle in the home is not going to help you much if someone decides to wage war on this country, simply because a war on our own doorstep is not likely to be by human invasion, it will be via long distance nuclear weapons, or say, planes hijacked and crashed into our buildings?
With reference to the armed police personnel at our airports, that also caused major headline news when it first started, it was a huge deal here, and I think recent events have justified the action.
Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I don't have an argument. It is there in black and white that US citizens have the right to bear arms. However, with all open statements, there is always room to argue the specifics...what are 'arms'? A handgun? A rifle? A grenade launcher? A nuclear weapon? And who exactly is a citizen? Someone born in the US? Is a convicted criminal a citizen? And who is responsible for answering those questions?
Finally, a last response to the comment "Careful Adele, that taste of freedom may cause you to long for more...". Ah but you see Sgt, I don't see my firing an M-16 as a taste of freedom, I see it as a cultural experience!
HM
PS Whew...you boys are gonna wear this woman out!! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 24 2003 : 2:02:09 PM
|
Ah Adele! So GOOD to have you back in the fray! Ya know, Ilse and I had some discussions a little while ago, and we BEHAVED! We didnt go off on each other! How about THAT! Maybe I've grown up, or maybe two people passionate about their viewpoints CAN have a discussion without letting it get personal, eh? At any rate I think Ilse and I deserve a HUGE pat on the back for how we handled our discussions between us!  Here's to YOU Ilse! Admittedly, I have changed and mellowed somewhat.......
Anway, we boys don't mind in the least wearing you out! With the right partner, that's a PLEASANT experience!
To continue:
" I couldn't agree more...but the fact of the matter is...too many parents aren't! Why aren't they?"
I don't know. It doesnt matter. In a free society the individual is repsonsible for those things, and is responsible for the results.
I have my own theories about the degradation of parenting and morality, but bottom line is - if people do bad things for whatever reason, they should bear the punishment and responsibility for those bad things. Many kids are raised without fathers, or in abusive homes, or in neglectful homes, and turn out just fine. It is in the character how one reacts to a situation.
"Who steps in to prevent the downward spiral of bad parents raising even worse parents?"
Gee. How about the CHURCH? Or a friend of the parents? Or the child himself? If the bad parenting results in criminal actions against the child, then it is the law's job to step in. If not, it's frankly nobody else's business in a free society.
"As a society it is our obligation to protect and support our fellow man - and that is where the government comes in..determining funding for vital services for example. I am not talking about government control, I am referring to government support..."
Society and government are NOT synonymous. Society is US. Government is an institution. We as a society should care for one another, support one another, aid in the common defense and security, etc. Government, by OUR leave, should pass no laws removing the responsibility from US, nor the ability from US. Name me ONE time in this country when Government has gotten their hooks into something through funding it, that they have NOT consequently tried to exercise control and dominance? Social Security? It's bankrupt. Education? They dictate teaching homosexuality as a lifestyle, safe sex, condoms, socialist doctrine to grade schoolers.
Highways and road repair? They tie social programs totally unrelated to safe roads into their funding and if I state does not toe the line, they go without the funds. And on and on. When you abdicate responsibility to a government, you allow them further control over you. When you allow them to "help" you with funding, you give them even more hooks into your life and more control over you.
In short, "government support" does not come without government control in this country.
"It is not some nameless faceless machine...it is supposed to be democratically elected representatives of the people. You say a government shouldn't change the culture of a country, but it is naturally going to, because it is made up of people that are part of the society in which you live. See my point?"
Really? It's not? When was the last time you sat down and had a chat with your PM? Or your representative for that matter? On a first name basis with him/her are you?
And no, we here in this country - and our founding fathers for that matter, do NOT believe government should change the culture. That's our job as a society.......we determine what our culture is. When government begins changing culture, you have abdicated to government the decisions about what is acceptable and what is not culturally.
Hence we go from tolerance of homosexuals and arresting and convicting homophobes who harrass and beat such folks (as there is NO lawful excuse to harrass or beat anybody s |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 24 2003 : 2:02:55 PM
|
First off let me say, "Well done, Bill". Your statements ring as true as any found in the Federalist Papers. You are one true patriot, and a guy who I'd drink with at the VFW or anywhere else.
Now, on to Adele, my statements stand on their own merit. The remarks concerning your police force was to help you clarify your original statement below:
quote:
We still have a police force that does not carry firearms (excluding the special units, of course).
Secondly, the Falklands War was fought by the highly trained and motivated armed forces of your country, but not the average citizen. I point to the exploits of a group of highly motivated and patriotic citizens aboard United Flight #93, who caused a bunch of animals to crash the plane into an empty field rather than allow them to fly on to a more populated area. That is an example of the warrior spirit in my culture, the concept that there are ideas and values larger than the individual, worth risking it all for.
Thirdly, I will respond to the following quote:
quote:
Your point is well made about borrowing firearms and arming the population during WW2, but nevertheless, in our current day, I think most people would feel that a rifle in the home is not going to help you much if someone decides to wage war on this country, simply because a war on our own doorstep is not likely to be by human invasion, it will be via long distance nuclear weapons, or say, planes hijacked and crashed into our buildings?
That is still 'Cold War' and 'September 10th' thinking. Speaking as a man of military experience, I will tell you that a country may be bombed into ruin, but it is never defeated until the enemy holds your turf. Also, having a firearm does offer protection against the more common acts of terrorist, that being suicide-bombers and gun-toting fighting cells (Just ask the Israelis). Remember the words of your own Winston Churchill, "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the streets...", it rings as true today as it did during the dark months of the Battle of Britian.
As far as your question concerning citizens, the answer is simple. Convicted felons in the U.S., even after their sentence is completed, still do not have the right to own firearms or the right to vote (This really upsets democrats, since they see a whole constituancy going to waste, people who themselves and their deceased relatives could vote). The reason for this is simple, owning a firearm and voting both involve the use of force. Convicted felons have demonstrated that they abuse such force, and thus are kept out of the circuit of full-citizens.
As far as what type of arms, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on that in 1936. The ruling was against man who owned a cut-down shotgun (In violation of the 1934 Gun Control Act), the court ruled that it did not fall under the protection of the Second Amendment because the weapon was not a military-style firearm. The court believed that the amendment protected the private ownship of military weapons (today that would be the M-16), for use by the citizenry (AKA the un-organized militia). Unfortunately, the high court has dodged almost every 2nd Amendment case steered toward it since. The 'nuclear weapon' remark is something of a cop-out, and one used by the Anti-Freedom crowd in this country, which I will not even address.
As to the following quote:
quote:
Ah but you see Sgt, I don't see my firing an M-16 as a taste of freedom, I see i |
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 24 2003 : 2:31:48 PM
|
P.S. - Adele, as I said, even though I do not agree with some of your statements or your logic. I still think you are cool, and one foxy babe! (Oh no!!!, Yet another Anti-PC statement from the Pittsburgh Caveman!!!)
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 24 2003 : 3:51:30 PM
|
Thanks for the words Sarge, and hell yeah, I'd have a drink or ten with you anytime, anyplace, anywhere. For that matter, I'd have a drink with Adele likewise anytime, anyplace, anywhere. She is most welcome to hold the opinions she does, and she has thought them out and come to her own conclusions. If she feels a disarmed England is a healthy thing, and cops should be unarmed while criminals go armed, and that works for her and the folks of England.....it's not for me to dispute that program. I don't think it has merit, but it's not for ME to decide.
One follow up on a point Adele made though......about some farmer or citizen not feeling safer from invasion by having a rifle in his closet.
Well, maybe an individual farmer with an individual rifle in his closet is NOT safer from invasion, BUT an entire populace with a single rifle in their closets is a SERIOUS consideration to be reckoned with by any invader. More to OUR point, an entire populace with a single rifle in each closet is SAFER from their OWN government getting out of hand. Just as the invader would have to think carefully about an entire armed civilian populace unhappy about the invasion, Governments have to think about an entire armed population unhappy about governmental excesses and oppressions and injustices commited against that entire population. One rifle owned by one guy (or a privileged few elite) is of no consequence in such things. An entire population with guns ready to defend each other and their constitutional government WILL give pause to invaders AND governments.
So many examples exist. French resistence, Chezk resistence, the American revolution, French revolution, and on through history......
such movements against oppression started out with single shot, bolt action rifles or hunting rifles. Ambushes and well planned attacks on soft targets garnered full military arms from the oppressors. With those, harder targets attacked netting MORE arms, ammo, material of war. A real headache for the oppressor or invader. Heck, most of the people who rose up in the French revolution had friggin knives and pitchforks and such. The Bastille wasn't only a prison......it was an arms cache. However, IF the need EVER arose for the English people to rise up against an oppressive government or invader Adele.........do you REALLY want to start the process of regaining your freedoms with pitchforks and kitchen knives???????
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 24 2003 : 4:09:08 PM
|
Oops! And let's NOT forget one of the MOST heroic, and poignant, resistences of ALL........the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazi oppressors plans to deport and exterminate. That started with a few handguns and a handful or rifles smuggled in....and stopped the occupation forces in their tracks, then subsequently the SS division sent to help crush the rebellion.....with all their automatic weapons, tanks, howitzers and so forth. Absolutely heroic. And a classic case of guerilla warfare by citizens against a better armed oppressor. What they would not have given to each have had a rifle in the closet before it all started in 1939, eh? Would the Ghetto even have been established? One wonders................certainly NOT if the entire Polish population had hidden a rifle in each closet, and fought to preserve the humanity of the Jews as fellow citizens as they should have.
When you let a government pick on one part of a society and oppress it, you can be darn sure you are likely to be next at some point.
I believe. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 05:56:32 AM
|
Valid points made...and food for thought! Will now go and digest!!
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
Ah Adele! So GOOD to have you back in the fray! Ya know, Ilse and I had some discussions a little while ago, and we BEHAVED! We didnt go off on each other! How about THAT! Maybe I've grown up, or maybe two people passionate about their viewpoints CAN have a discussion without letting it get personal, eh? At any rate I think Ilse and I deserve a HUGE pat on the back for how we handled our discussions between us! Here's to YOU Ilse! Admittedly, I have changed and mellowed somewhat.......
I am so delighted to hear it! I look forward to seeing more of it!
quote:
That is because of where and when you were born, and how your culture affected your upbringing. I do not dislike you Adele (How could I not like anyone with the nickname 'The Huggy Merchant'), but I do feel sorry for you.
Ohhhh now...please don't do that!! You shouldn't feel sorry for me anymore than I should feel sorry for YOU! Where and when you were born, and how your culture affected your upbringing has also made YOU the person you are. What's to feel sorry for?!
quote:
P.S. - Adele, as I said, even though I do not agree with some of your statements or your logic. I still think you are cool, and one foxy babe! (Oh no!!!, Yet another Anti-PC statement from the Pittsburgh Caveman!!!)
LOL!! Anti-PC works VERY well for me - can't stand it myself! Altho...foxy babe?!!!
HM
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 25 2003 : 08:29:03 AM
|
quote:
and hell yeah, I'd have a drink or ten with you anytime, anyplace, anywhere. For that matter, I'd have a drink with Adele likewise anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
Your on, Bill, and yes Adele would be fun to have in the think tank too, that would be one heck of a 'round-table' discussion group, huh? My boys and I are looking at going to the 2004 Grand Encampment in Michigan. That would be a good 'halfway point', for us to have that drink or ten, whaddya think Bill?
quote:
Altho...foxy babe?!!!
Hell, yes!!! Now, I'm a happily married man, but if I were single...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 10:56:20 AM
|
| Where and when is the Grand Encampment in Michigan Sarge? I'll put it on my calendar. Will it be rum, sherry, claret, ping, or good old rotgut whiskey? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.99 seconds |
 |
|
2nd Ammendment and Killdeer
