Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 35 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 689
Like Tree279Likes

Thread: 18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

  1. #121
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I love how you guys keep moving the goal line. Now the determining factor is energy.
    The energy of a projectile downrange is the main defining factor in a round's effectiveness. That's what ballistics data is all about.

    The mass of the bullet and its velocity together determine its ballistics. Think of it like an MVA where a vehicle hits a stationary object. Two vehicles are the same physical size (caliber) but the second one (30-06) is going considerably faster and is heavier. The second one (30-06) is going to do significantly more damage. There are other factors involving the projectile's properties (bullet or vehicle) and the target itself that can enhance or reduce the damage incurred, but that gets more complicated than simple ballistics.


  2. #122
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Again, the non gun owning populace doesn't care when they are being shot at by someone with a semi-auto rifle with a large capacity magazine.


    I've gotten all my facts correct.


    ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz......and the people shot by them are no less dead.


    See above response.


    See above response.


    Nope. And at one time I'm betting folks considered the Kentucky rifle an assault weapon.


    ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz......and the people shot by them are no less dead.
    What's next? Holding your breath? Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nah Ner Nah Ner?" Throwing yourself on the ground in a temper tantrum yelling "NO YOU'RE WRONG?" Because frankly, this post by you is the closest thing to an admission that you haven't got one single damn clue at all about this topic.

    Maybe you will respond to this with "I know you are but what am I?"

    Just sitting here laughing my a z z off at your utter rdiculousness.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 12-22-2012 at 11:40 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  3. #123
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    ...I have never seen anyone suggesting banning cars or stopping people over the age of 65 from driving when an elderly person blasts into a building or runs down a crowd of people...
    Really? You've never had the experience of pulling an elderly family members license? You've never heard of that happening? You've never heard politicians discuss driving age limits? You've never heard people argue against that...with reasons that sound similar to yours for keeping the semi-automatic guns.

    "It's our right"
    "There are thousands that ##### safely"


    Guess that's just another point we will have to disagree on.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  4. #124
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Really? You've never had the experience of pulling an elderly family members license? You've never heard of that happening? You've never heard politicians discuss driving age limits? You've never heard people argue against that...with reasons that sound similar to yours for keeping the semi-automatic guns.

    "It's our right"
    "There are thousands that ##### safely"


    Guess that's just another point we will have to disagree on.
    The family telling 92 year old mom she shouldn't drive anymore and taking away her keys is hardly the same as the government saying anyone over 72.5 can no longer drive.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  5. #125
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Only in your own mind. Pathetic.
    What's pathetic is that you've made a statement without support. Which is typical.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #126
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    What's pathetic is that you've made a statement without support. Which is typical.
    If there are any statements I've made you care to challenge with facts, say so. I'm not in any hurry but can back up everything I've written on the subject with references if need be. Can you?
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  7. #127
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Okay, let me embarass you one last time. The AK-47 fires an intermediate round. It is 7.62x39, the previous MAIN BATTLE RIFLE round for the former Soviet Union was the 7.62x54. The US military currently uses the 5.56x45mm round, which is another intermediate round.. It replaced the 7.62x51mm round of the M14 a MAIN BATTLE RIFLE. The 7.62x51 replaced the 30-06 which was 7.62x63mm and was used in the M1 Garand and the 1903 Springfield. Both of which were MAIN BATTLE RIFLES.
    Ha ha ha. The only being embarrassed is yourself. A couple of points. I stated I could make a case the M1 was an assault rifle in its day. You seem to think people actually care about your knowledge regarding the terminology of firearms. I could make the case that what you now call MAIN BATTLE RIFLES were in fact the ASSAULT RIFLES of their era.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Your complete ignorance of this topic makes you nothing more than another ultra leftist anti-gunner of the worst type. You can't intelligent define or defend your position so you resort to nonsense and drivel. You know like the purchase and ownership of candy and potato chips are heavily regulated by the government. (Yeah, Yeah, I heard you try to say that regulation of manufacture of candy s the same as regulation of what you can buy and what quantity. Sorry, that is just plain stupid and even you know it and that is why you dropped that line of drivel.) Like comparing the use of commercial explosive to legal gun ownership. Like calling something a "military style assault weapon" isn't calling that very same thing an assault weapon.
    See above response. I'll try to make my comparison one more time as it relates to explosives and assault rifle type weapons. The majority of users of commercial explosives (like the owners of firearms) are law abiding good folks who use those items in a responsible manner. However, since there is a very few individuals who might possibly misuse explosives they are tightly regulated and tracked. I can't make it any clearer to than that. If you choose to not understand the analogy I'm making, that is certainly your choice. More importantly the Supreme Court has deemed the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute. There are restrictions on firearms of certain types. The 2nd Amendment says you have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say you have a right to a semi-auto rifle with a 30, 50, or 100 round magazine. It doesn't say you have a right to buy a weapon at a gun show with no background check. It doesn't say that guns can't be registered. It doesn't say that bullets can't be microstamped. It doesn't say that safety locks and safes can't be required in homes. These are things that could be done that don't violate the 2nd Amendment and have been shown to work in other countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You see this is why I believe you are just trolling here. You have been stomped by not only me, but multiple people on this topic nd all you do is divert. Try to do what you kept yelling at the guy in the politics topic about...stay on topic. But, I don't think you can because you expected to go up against a bunch of good old boy gun guys that don't know the law or the actual definitions of what you are poorly attempting to talk about. It must really hurt your ego to see you can't bluff or bully people on this topic because we know more than you do...but then again that has never had any meaning to knee jerk poiliticos anyways.
    Blah blah blah. When people are being shot at they don't care what YOU call the weapon being used. I doubt anyone in Sandy Hook Elementary School was glad they were only being shot at with a weapon you don't consider an assault rifle.
    Last edited by scfire86; 12-23-2012 at 11:39 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #128
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    The energy of a projectile downrange is the main defining factor in a round's effectiveness. That's what ballistics data is all about.

    The mass of the bullet and its velocity together determine its ballistics. Think of it like an MVA where a vehicle hits a stationary object. Two vehicles are the same physical size (caliber) but the second one (30-06) is going considerably faster and is heavier. The second one (30-06) is going to do significantly more damage. There are other factors involving the projectile's properties (bullet or vehicle) and the target itself that can enhance or reduce the damage incurred, but that gets more complicated than simple ballistics.
    ZZZZzzzzzzz BORRRRINNNGGG!!!

    They both fire .30 cal. rounds with 150 gr bullets. They can both knock down a deer sized animal at 300 yards. The only thing that military ball ammo doesn't do as well is expand since by treaty the militaries across the world agreed to only use full metal jacketed rounds.
    Last edited by scfire86; 12-23-2012 at 11:26 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #129
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    They both fire .30 cal. rounds with 150 gr bullets.
    And yet they have very different ballistics.

    They can both knock down a deer sized animal at 300 yards.
    .30-06? No problem. 7.62x39? Problem. Not even a close comparison. Could you hunt deer with a 7.62x39 round? In a pinch and at close range, yeah. At 300 yards you'd better be God's gift to marksmen and shoot only deer with very thin skin.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  10. #130
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    ZZZZzzzzzzz BORRRRINNNGGG!!!

    They both fire .30 cal. rounds with 150 gr bullets. They can both knock down a deer sized animal at 300 yards. The only thing that military ball ammo doesn't do as well is expand since by treaty the militaries across the world agreed to only use full metal jacketed rounds.
    Yepper, and that treaty worked well too. I have some Japanese rounds from WW2 that my Dad brought home that thet Japanese soldiers had cut the ends off the bullets so they would expand more. Golly, I guess signing that treaty meant no one would do that sort of thing.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  11. #131
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Ha ha ha. The only being embarrassed is yourself. A couple of points. I stated I could make a case the M1 was an assault rifle in its day. You seem to think people actually care about your knowledge regarding the terminology of firearms. I could make the case that what you now call MAIN BATTLE RIFLES were in fact the ASSAULT RIFLES of their era.

    No matter how you want to keep trying to spin this the M1 Garand WILL NOT EVER be an assault rifle. It simply and clearly does not meet the definition of such. Was it an advanced design? Yes, it was. But that does not make it an assault rifle.


    See above response. I'll try to make my comparison one more time as it relates to explosives and assault rifle type weapons. The majority of users of commercial explosives (like the owners of firearms) are law abiding good folks who use those items in a responsible manner. However, since there is a very few individuals who might possibly misuse explosives they are tightly regulated and tracked. I can't make it any clearer to than that. If you choose to not understand the analogy I'm making, that is certainly your choice. More importantly the Supreme Court has deemed the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute. There are restrictions on firearms of certain types. The 2nd Amendment says you have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say you have a right to a semi-auto rifle with a 30, 50, or 100 round magazine. It doesn't say you have a right to buy a weapon at a gun show with no background check. It doesn't say that guns can't be registered. It doesn't say that bullets can't be microstamped. It doesn't say that safety locks and safes can't be required in homes. These are things that could be done that don't violate the 2nd Amendment and have been shown to work in other countries

    The 2nd Ammendment has absolutely no restrictions on the type or quantity of firearms that may be owned. Those restrictions have been added by the legisilature and the 2nd ammendment hasn't been changed. One actually could make the argument that those laws violate the 2nd Ammendment.


    Blah blah blah. When people are being shot at they don't care what YOU call the weapon being used. I doubt anyone in Sandy Hook Elementary School was glad they were only being shot at with a weapon you don't consider an assault rifle.

    The point here is YOU ARE WRONG and it is someting that you can't handle. You knit picked that guy in the politics topic over minor details and you can't even define the weapon you want to ban. The truth is assault weapons are a miniscule amount of firearms in the grand scheme of things and they ARE heavily regulated. The firearms used were legal for a law abiding citizen to possess because they were all semi-automatic. The fact that you and others love to gloss over is that the shooter stole those guns.

    This crime was horrific, I am not at all saying it wasn't. But the guns are not capable of anything on their own. Human intervention is required for good or evil use of a firearm to occur. The truth is the one thing you have been right about is the victims don't care what type of gun they were shot with and to be honest they would be just as dead if they had been shot with a hunting rifle with a replaceable magazine. The pathetic part is you and the press would then be calling that gun an assault weapon becaue that is how this all works. Propaganda and emotion drive the anti-gun side, not facts, not real solutions to criminals and the mentally ill, but broad stroke punish those that did nothing wrong solutions that solve nothing.
    I pity your ultra simplistic look at this topic. Your mind is so closed that you must have taken lessons from the Republicans you despise so much.

    Have a Merry Christmas.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  12. #132
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    And yet they have very different ballistics.

    .30-06? No problem. 7.62x39? Problem. Not even a close comparison. Could you hunt deer with a 7.62x39 round? In a pinch and at close range, yeah. At 300 yards you'd better be God's gift to marksmen and shoot only deer with very thin skin.
    ZZZZZzzzzzz.....not the point.

    I know folks who have done exactly that. More importantly I know folks who were in combat and were either knocked down or saw their colleagues killed by the 7.62x39 round at that range.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #133
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    No matter how you want to keep trying to spin this the M1 Garand WILL NOT EVER be an assault rifle. It simply and clearly does not meet the definition of such. Was it an advanced design? Yes, it was. But that does not make it an assault rifle.
    According to your narrow definition. I'm sure they were considered assault weapons of their era. As was the 1903 Springfield before it.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The 2nd Ammendment has absolutely no restrictions on the type or quantity of firearms that may be owned. Those restrictions have been added by the legisilature and the 2nd ammendment hasn't been changed. One actually could make the argument that those laws violate the 2nd Ammendment.
    Doubtful. If that were the case there would have been challenges by now and the laws would be overturned. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has been the law of the land since that time.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The point here is YOU ARE WRONG and it is someting that you can't handle. You knit picked that guy in the politics topic over minor details and you can't even define the weapon you want to ban. The truth is assault weapons are a miniscule amount of firearms in the grand scheme of things and they ARE heavily regulated. The firearms used were legal for a law abiding citizen to possess because they were all semi-automatic. The fact that you and others love to gloss over is that the shooter stole those guns.
    I haven't glossed over that fact at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    This crime was horrific, I am not at all saying it wasn't. But the guns are not capable of anything on their own. Human intervention is required for good or evil use of a firearm to occur. The truth is the one thing you have been right about is the victims don't care what type of gun they were shot with and to be honest they would be just as dead if they had been shot with a hunting rifle with a replaceable magazine. The pathetic part is you and the press would then be calling that gun an assault weapon becaue that is how this all works. Propaganda and emotion drive the anti-gun side, not facts, not real solutions to criminals and the mentally ill, but broad stroke punish those that did nothing wrong solutions that solve nothing.
    Again, no one cares what you consider an assault weapon. Particularly those who have been shot or know folks that have been killed by one. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I pity your ultra simplistic look at this topic. Your mind is so closed that you must have taken lessons from the Republicans you despise so much.
    That's funny. Good one.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Have a Merry Christmas.
    You too.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #134
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    According to your narrow definition. I'm sure they were considered assault weapons of their era. As was the 1903 Springfield before it.

    You are still WRONG! No matter how many times you say other wise. Wrong as the day is long and no matter how many times you keep saying the wrong thing it will NEVER be right.

    Man that has got to hurt an arrogant a s s like you.


    Doubtful. If that were the case there would have been challenges by now and the laws would be overturned. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has been the law of the land since that time.

    Show me where in the second ammendment it says anything about the type of firearm or magazine capacity. Go ahead, do some research. I'll wait...


    I haven't glossed over that fact at all.

    YES, you have. REPEATEDLY.


    Again, no one cares what you consider an assault weapon. Particularly those who have been shot or know folks that have been killed by one. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

    Yet you are pushing for more strict gun control and you can't even define the firearm or firearms you want more controls on.

    You are partially right in your Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. It should also read people with knives, baseball bats, gasoline, cars, rope, etc. kill people. The inanimate object is not responsible for any action taken by the person utilizing that tool for illegal purposes. People kill people is far more accurate...than identifying any implement used in the murder.



    That's funny. Good one.

    Sometimes the truth is funny.

    You too.

    I shall. Thank you. Bought my stepdaughter the BBgun she wanted. You know they come with safety glasses now?
    Happy New year too.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 12-23-2012 at 07:22 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  15. #135
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    According to your narrow definition. I'm sure they were considered assault weapons of their era. As was the 1903 Springfield before it.
    And the revolutionary war era musket before that? Was that an assault weapon, too?

    Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
    More accurately, a tiny fraction of people with guns kill people. The vast majority of people with guns don't kill anyone.
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 12-23-2012 at 07:45 PM.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  16. #136
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    And the revolutionary war era musket before that? Was that an assault weapon, too?
    I'm sure they were.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    More accurately, a tiny fraction of people with guns kill people. The vast majority of people with guns don't kill anyone.
    True. However, other countries allow gun ownership and don't have the problems of tiny fractions committing mass murder. It's time we take a look at their models and think about adopting them.
    Last edited by scfire86; 12-24-2012 at 01:10 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #137
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Overwhelming urge to possess numerous wannabe GI Joe guns = paranoid schizophrenia or small penis... or both.

  18. #138
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I'm sure they were.
    Well at least you support the fact that the 2nd Amendment gaurantees citizens the right to own "assault weapons" then.

    However, other countries allow gun ownership and don't have the problems of tiny fractions committing mass murder.
    And there are other countries with high gun ownership that don't have the issues with violence that we have in this country. That indicates that private gun ownership isn't the cause.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  19. #139
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Overwhelming urge to possess numerous wannabe GI Joe guns = paranoid schizophrenia or small penis... or both.
    Many would say the same thing about firefighters with tatoos, or that drive big 4 wheel drive trucks, or a fancy car, or have a burned and damaged helmet, or never wash their gear, or that have to have the biggest camper or motor home, or the fastest speed boat, or high dollar fishing equipment, or the latest and greatest electronic whatever, or any number of other things.

    Frankly shooting is one of MY HOBBIES. I find target shooting and plinking very relaxing because in order to do it right you have to focus on that alone. The type of firearm I choose to do my entirely legal hobby with is really no ones business and your simplistic and insulting inference says more about you than it does about the millions of law abiding gun owners in this country,
    SPFDRum, DeputyMarshal and Chenzo like this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  20. #140
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I'm sure they were.

    Still wrong, and you look sillier and less informed every time you post something this ridiculous.


    True. However, other countries allow gun ownership and don't have the problems of tiny fractions committing mass murder. It's time we take a look at their models and think about adopting them.

    To me the issues are this country's incredibly poor system of mental health care and perhaps even more important is the glorification of violence and the dehumanization of that violence. How do we glorify and dehumanize violence? Easy, video games allow you to kill and in fact in some games murder with absolutely no consequences, in fact you get bonus points for you body count. Lately the dehumanization charge has been led by the popularity of zombies. You know, humans that have become zombies that the heroes wholesale slaughter at will. Did you know that some survivalists refer to those that will come after what they have as zombies? Why? Because it is easier to consider killing zombies than to kill your neighbor Fred if he comes after your food. The games and the movies are not, in and of themselves, evil or the cause of anything, the cause is when parents give up parenting to those games and movies and reality is lost. Or someone that is mentally ill sees them as reality.

    Address the real issues of society and stop baming inanimate objects for those societal evils.
    Have a joyous Christmas Eve.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 12-24-2012 at 10:44 AM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting is West Palm Beach leaves firefighter, gunman dead.
    By SouthFlaHopeful in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 05:54 AM
  2. At least 2 dead in Kansas City mall shooting
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 11:06 AM
  3. India-At Least 100 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 05:08 AM
  4. Children that cheered dead Americans
    By Waterboy620 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-12-2003, 05:01 PM
  5. Haysville, KS - 2 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2002, 03:38 AM

Posting Permissions

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