SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Having apparently gone over the "Gregory" line, Big time will Sen. Feinstein get busted?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43756
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 12:03 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Busted for a Washington D. C. weapons violation?

Just look at that array of what are, I'm rather confident, completely illegal in D. C. weapons on her display*. The district prosecutors gave Gregory a one time only pass so will they go after this goss violation?

Equality under the law should demand so.

Multiple vertical handgrips? The horror.

*
http://news.yahoo.com/feinste....cs.html

http://www.abc15.com/dpp....gun-law

District won’t prosecute David Gregory for waving illegal gun clip on air
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....-on-air

Oh they have trigger locks on them so they're very real firearms. No fakes for the Senator's show and tell it seems.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 8:05 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Guns that would be banned.

QUOTE
"One criticism of the '94 law was that it was a two-characteristic test that defined that, and that was too easy to work around," Feinstein said, noting that manufacturers would tweak models to remove one of the two characteristics making the gun legal. "The bill we are introducing today, it will be -- will make it much more difficult to work around by removing a one-characteristic test."
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 8:19 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 25 2013, 12:03 am)
QUOTE
Busted for a Washington D. C. weapons violation?

Just look at that array of what are, I'm rather confident, completely illegal in D. C. weapons on her display*. The district prosecutors gave Gregory a one time only pass so will they go after this goss violation?

Equality under the law should demand so.

Multiple vertical handgrips? The horror.

*
http://news.yahoo.com/feinste....cs.html

http://www.abc15.com/dpp....gun-law

District won’t prosecute David Gregory for waving illegal gun clip on air
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....-on-air

Oh they have trigger locks on them so they're very real firearms. No fakes for the Senator's show and tell it seems.

You are not even reading the links you post are you High Sierra Bab.



Feinstein's office told ABC News that the senator worked with U.S. Capitol Police and Washington Metro Police to ensure the display of weapons at the press conference complied with the rules.




Little "trigger happy" huh?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43756
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 12:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Isn't that the same thing Gregory used as a defense?

Possession in and of itself is a violation were those to have been, in fact, illegal under D.C. law. That's how the Gregory story played out. Now granted, not being a D.C. law enforcement person that was my personal opinion based on what they looked like, why I stated I was "confident", and someone using the "Gregory Defense" ("I checked with somebody, really I did") seems to hardly wave off the issue.

Now like in Gregory's and NBC News' case there may have been a decision not to prosecute but if one single magazine got Gregory under scrutiny what's the "logic" behind giving an entire WALL of fully assembled weapons a pass?

"The department spokeswoman, Tisha Gant, said the police told NBC they could not display the magazine, since possessing a large capacity ammunition device is illegal in the District of Columbia. Gant said the matter is under investigation.

I don't see any exceptions being noted and the report on the decision not to prosecute didn't mention there were any "rules" that would have allowed the display: just that they'd better not do it again or the hammer would drop.

"[Office of the Attorney General] has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust."

Given the Heller  court case I'd be very surprised if those firearms were legal in D.C. even though they may be in other jurisdictions and what with the static Gregory got that display caught my eye.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 12:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Jan. 25 2013, 8:19 am)
QUOTE
...High Sierra Bab.

Now that's just mean...although this does seem like one of Bab's troll threads. Kinda surprised HSF went there.

Sun Myung Moon's people are on it though.

QUOTE
The California Democrat declared that the guns were legal, due to a prearranged deal with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). She used the firearms as a prop while announcing her new super-charged “assault weapons ban.”

Brian Weiss, a spokesman for Mrs. Feinstein, told The Washington Times, that, “The weapons were under Washington MPD possession the entire time.” He said that the office “coordinated with the department” and the U.S. Capitol Police.

MPD Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier’s spokesman, Gwendolyn Crump, would not respond to an inquiry but referred all questions on the subject matter to the U.S. Capitol Police.
A spokesman for the Capitol Police, Officer Shennell S. Antrobus, responded two hours later that his department "helped the transfer within the building" of the firearms, which were then "in possession of law enforcement there." He would not say what agency was overseeing the contraband weapons, nor who authorized breaking the city's assault weapons ban. It is unclear if any law enforcement agency has the power to overturn the city's firearms ordinances on its own.

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43756
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 12:35 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

HighGravity- The first glimpse I got of the issue was a news broadcast app post showing her standing in front of all those firearms and I immediately thought of the hassle Gregory got into.

Rather straightforward actually from my perspective.

ETA: Now if, just out of the frame of the photo-op, there were Metro D.C. law enforcement personnel (or perhaps even Capitol Police) that had effective physical control of the actual weapons that would change the situation in a significant way from Gregory's situation where there were no Metro police. A display of such contraband, like when cops lay out drugs from a bust, wouldn't logically be a violation of laws intended to regulate other's possession of such things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3946
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 12:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

They're obviously not legal in the district and NOBODY will issue a warrant for this.

--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 12:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Jan. 25 2013, 12:36 pm)
QUOTE
They're obviously not legal in the district and NOBODY will issue a warrant for this.

A warrant for what?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43756
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 12:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Jan. 25 2013, 9:36 am)
QUOTE
They're obviously not legal in the district and NOBODY will issue a warrant for this.

Having all those oh so very important people to deal with must be like NYPD and the United Nations except on steroids.

ETA: Glad to see that "obviously" validating my gut feel. In light of Heller I sort of figured actual shoulder arms such as those just had to be over the line....
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 12:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Jan. 25 2013, 12:36 pm)
QUOTE
They're obviously not legal in the district and NOBODY will issue a warrant for this.

The thing is this is just another distraction from the bigger issue. We hear a lot of them.

While not legal in the district there has to be some degree of practicality here. How are DC police (as well as the Capitol Police) armed to tackle terrorist attack. Then you have the Secret Service in the district, then the FBI building just down the road from the Capitol.  

There are all sorts of exceptions to this rule already in place and being applied on a daily basis - so why are we making a fuss about it.

Oh yes, that's because people are trying to make a point about how impractical it is to distinguish weapons in this way.... or perhaps they just have a gut reaction to a photo they see, then go out and grab a couple of links about it, then some about the Gregory story, and start a new thread - obviously.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 12:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

DC police and Capitol police also had exemption from the long-standing handgun ban in the district - which was only lifted in practical terms after the Heller case.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43756
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 1:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Jan. 25 2013, 9:56 am)
QUOTE

(JimInMD @ Jan. 25 2013, 12:36 pm)
QUOTE
They're obviously not legal in the district and NOBODY will issue a warrant for this.

The thing is this is just another distraction from the bigger issue. We hear a lot of them.

While not legal in the district there has to be some degree of practicality here. How are DC police (as well as the Capitol Police) armed to tackle terrorist attack. Then you have the Secret Service in the district, then the FBI building just down the road from the Capitol.  

There are all sorts of exceptions to this rule already in place and being applied on a daily basis - so why are we making a fuss about it.

Oh yes, that's because people are trying to make a point about how impractical it is to distinguish weapons in this way.... or perhaps they just have a gut reaction to a photo they see, then go out and grab a couple of links about it, then some about the Gregory story, and start a new thread - obviously.

As an example of different rules for civilians such as David Gregory and federal elected officials such as Sen. Feinstein the item appears to highlight the issue of "privileges". A read of that letter and with phrases such as prosecuted to the fullest extent alongside imaging that was Gregory in front of the display and what's the expected outcome? Maybe the D.C. prosecutor's office bluffs, but maybe not.

If you've such an ever-present  fear of distraction you might want to seek some neurological assistance, or at least horse-blinders. :D
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 1:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

You know HSF - the cynic in me might suggest you were not being completely honest when you basically said you were making an informational point.

That cynic may suggest that you were trying to make a point that the woman proposing the law broke the law herself - undermining any attempt at a discussion on gun control (well only part of the wider effort as I'm sure we'll see this exact theme all over the internet now).

Only you fell flat on your face didn't you.

It may do you well to spend a little less time worrying about my mental faculties and a little more on the stuff you are posting - perhaps even reading the links you post to.

Advice I'm sure you'll ignore.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43756
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 1:37 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://thehill.com/blogs....-plates

Fun town.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 2:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

In all seriousness.

I don't think the ban is going to work. It won't pull enough support from rural dems and will get nowhere in the house.

Hopefully it will form the basis of a discussion about perhaps introducing trigger locks in certain types of weapon, better background checks, slightly tighter controls on ownership and traceability and the whole list of things we can do to make things just a little bit safer.

But issues like this seek to quash that discussion - as does trying to compare guns and assault rifles to just about anything out there that has ever killed a human.

It's not a matter of privilege in any way shape or form. It seems like Capitol Police were in possession or control of the weapons at all times - and of course their are exceptions for law enforcement.

Should one of the Cap police here, for example, take a weapon off of someone trying to enter the capitol, would that officer then be liable for prosecution.

Capitol police are also Federal - perhaps Jim can tell us if this changes anything, as I'm sure there are exceptions for Federal agencies, like the Cap police, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Military.  

If Feinstein, or Gregory were looking to own these weapons in any way themselves, then go ahead and prosecute them, but the public interest issue is a strong and worthy one that makes this entire thread pointless and somewhat childish - somewhat symptomatic of the bumper sticker attitude of the pro-gun individuals.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3946
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 2:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Here's the trick to police...

When the weapons laws are written, they all contain exceptions for police and usually a few other groups under specific situations (like security guards on duty or very limited circumstances for the military).  My off-duty authority is covered under 2 USC 1941.

Now, as for the issue at hand.  The weapons she's pictured with are illegal in the city for private citizens.  I have no idea on the chain of custody on how they got in to the city and I never will, so I won't speculate.  This isn't the first photo op she's done and after the David Gregory FUBAR, I'm sure her office dotted the i's and crossed the t's.  I don't know of any provision to exempt her from the laws, but it's very possible that it's an arrangement with the prosecutor's office that they wouldn't charge her with any applicable possession charges.  It's possible that Capitol Police technically retained the weapons during the press conference.  What I don't understand is why she didn't just use inert weapons the same way that the military does if they're testifying on the Hill and need weapons as "props".

LR, as to the bigger conversation, I wish she'd spend the effort fleshing out a really good bill on background checks that she does trying to ban weapons.  If she did that, she'd have the votes.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 3:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Jan. 25 2013, 2:57 pm)
QUOTE
Here's the trick to police...

When the weapons laws are written, they all contain exceptions for police and usually a few other groups under specific situations (like security guards on duty or very limited circumstances for the military).  My off-duty authority is covered under 2 USC 1941.

Now, as for the issue at hand.  The weapons she's pictured with are illegal in the city for private citizens.  I have no idea on the chain of custody on how they got in to the city and I never will, so I won't speculate.  This isn't the first photo op she's done and after the David Gregory FUBAR, I'm sure her office dotted the i's and crossed the t's.  I don't know of any provision to exempt her from the laws, but it's very possible that it's an arrangement with the prosecutor's office that they wouldn't charge her with any applicable possession charges.  It's possible that Capitol Police technically retained the weapons during the press conference.  What I don't understand is why she didn't just use inert weapons the same way that the military does if they're testifying on the Hill and need weapons as "props".

LR, as to the bigger conversation, I wish she'd spend the effort fleshing out a really good bill on background checks that she does trying to ban weapons.  If she did that, she'd have the votes.

Well it would be if Capitol Hill could work like that - but compromise and the inclusion of things you think the other side will find acceptable will just lead to the goal line being moved.

For someone in favor of more controls it's far better for Feinstein to start from that position then move to compromise than to start with compromise.

Realistically she's dealing with the hard core element of the GOP, which basically will compromise on nothing, ever, and the NRA, which will compromise on nothing, ever. So where's the value in her compromising from the start?

That's the political reality.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19342
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 5:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Feinstein's proposed plan, which she will formally introduce on the Senate floor this afternoon, will ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of 158 semi-automatic weapons with at least one military feature. It would also ban fixed magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Guess I'll have to get rid of my dad's old .22

It has a fixed magazine capacity of 15 rounds.

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 25 2013, 6:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6408
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 26 2013, 10:24 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If there is a ban, then the ban needs to include everyone.  We all know a ban won't affect the criminals, and won't affect the police, just the law abiding citizen.

I'm of the opinion that private citizens have the right to be armed with the same hardware as the police.

The local police force being "militarized" and "federalized" is alarming.

That said, there will be no ban as Feinstein doesn't have enough support.  Democrats remember what happened after the last ban.

Maybe King Obama the first will dictate a ban though executive order which would, of course, be unconstitutional.


--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 27 2013, 12:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Thank goodness they had the weapons zip tied to some back boards and trigger locks so that stupid old crone could not wave them around with her finger on the trigger!

I agree with GS

If nobody outside of the battelfield needs these weapons or magazines then the police, FBI, ATF, HS and Secret Service should be the first ones to turn theirs in.

As soon as the gun grabbers say that law enforcement need to keep their standard capacity magazines and carbines to be on equal footing with criminals, they have admitted that there is a NEED for these weapons to defend against criminals and their argument falls apart.

As far as DIFI getting prosecuted there is a double standard that must be adhered to in these situations.


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 27 2013, 12:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Jan. 25 2013, 2:57 pm)
QUOTE
Here's the trick to police...

When the weapons laws are written, they all contain exceptions for police and usually a few other groups under specific situations (like security guards on duty or very limited circumstances for the military).  My off-duty authority is covered under 2 USC 1941.

Now, as for the issue at hand.  The weapons she's pictured with are illegal in the city for private citizens.  I have no idea on the chain of custody on how they got in to the city and I never will, so I won't speculate.  This isn't the first photo op she's done and after the David Gregory FUBAR, I'm sure her office dotted the i's and crossed the t's.  I don't know of any provision to exempt her from the laws, but it's very possible that it's an arrangement with the prosecutor's office that they wouldn't charge her with any applicable possession charges.  It's possible that Capitol Police technically retained the weapons during the press conference.  What I don't understand is why she didn't just use inert weapons the same way that the military does if they're testifying on the Hill and need weapons as "props".

LR, as to the bigger conversation, I wish she'd spend the effort fleshing out a really good bill on background checks that she does trying to ban weapons.  If she did that, she'd have the votes.

Other than drama, why does she need any actualweapons at all?

If she simply must have visual aids, pictures should suffice

But it is (still) all about scaring the masses


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 27 2013, 2:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Jan. 27 2013, 12:18 pm)
QUOTE
Other than drama, why does she need any actualweapons at all?

If she simply must have visual aids, pictures should suffice

But it is (still) all about scaring the masses

For the very reason that you are reacting so strongly to it. Her presentation has done exactly what she wanted. Sent you guys in a tailspin.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 6:35 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hardly...but she does seem to have gotten the anti gun crowd all hot and bothered

--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 28 2013, 8:13 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Hardly? Then why are you hot and bothered about her bringing the actual guns in question to the press conference? The gun nuts are the ones talking about it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
24 replies since Jan. 25 2013, 12:03 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Having apparently gone over the "Gregory" line
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions