Like Tree82Likes

Thread: If the demographic fits, hope they don't acquit

  1. #451
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    scfire,

    WHY won't you support mandatory universal punishments for gun related crimes? Frankly, it is simplistic to believe that universal background checks and record keeping of law abiding citizens will have any impact on crime.
    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

  2. #452
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    scfire,

    WHY won't you support mandatory universal punishments for gun related crimes? Frankly, it is simplistic to believe that universal background checks and record keeping of law abiding citizens will have any impact on crime.
    Because I believe in judicial discretion.

    Secondly, believing that mandatory sentencing will reduce crime is just as simplistic.

    Why would you be opposed to background checks that will prevent irresponsible gun owners from gaining access to firearms?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #453
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Because I believe in judicial discretion.

    And I believe in the local communities right to set gun laws how they see fit. Plea bargaining and the elimination of true justice in sentencing is one of the reasons our entire legal system is a joke. Plea bargaining to me is just another example of corruption.


    Secondly, believing that mandatory sentencing will reduce crime is just as simplistic.

    WOW! That must be true because you say so. Prove that universal background checks will prevent crime. Oh yeah, you can't because criminals don't buy guns through legal sources. Talk about simplistic in your reasoning.

    Why would you be opposed to background checks that will prevent irresponsible gun owners from gaining access to firearms?

    Why as a law abiding citizen to I have to have yet another bit of freedom and privacy chipped away from my rights as an American citizen? The failure of your logic here is you once again support going after law abiding citizens but refuse to agree to universal, non-pleabargainable penalties for gun crimes. Punish the law breaker, not the law abider.
    This is just another one of your sing and dance arguments that makes me believe you don't believe in anything and are just an arbitrary a z z hat that likes to stir the pot.
    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

  4. #454
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    WOW! That must be true because you say so. Prove that universal background checks will prevent crime. Oh yeah, you can't because criminals don't buy guns through legal sources. Talk about simplistic in your reasoning.
    I never said they would prevent crime. I said they would prevent irresponsible individuals from gaining access to firearms.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #455
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I never said they would prevent crime. I said they would prevent irresponsible individuals from gaining access to firearms.
    And how would you define "irresponsible"?

    If they have a DWI conviction? If they have a history of domestic violence? Or maybe they have a history of some other issue that you consider deems them as "irresponsible".

    I have no issue with universal background checks, but I do have issues when we start listing disqualifiers.

    As Fryed said, most folks that commit crimes with firearms do not acquire guns through legal channels so you are punishing those who are responsible guns legally and using them responsibility with extra steps and requirements because of the actions of those who acquire weapons illegally.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  6. #456
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    ...God created man, firearms made them equal. One of the two of these are fact...
    So a guy with a 6 shot pistol is equal to a guy with a 20 round automatic rifle?

    Maybe your 0 for 2 with facts.
    "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?

  7. #457
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And how would you define "irresponsible"?
    People with criminal records, diagnosed mental illness, or a previous record of using firearms irresponsibly.

    Like the gentleman I cited earlier who pulled a gun on a girl scout knocking on his door to sell him cookies.

    Thanks for the softball.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #458
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    ...As Fryed said, most folks that commit crimes with firearms do not acquire guns through legal channels so you are punishing those who are responsible guns legally and using them responsibility with extra steps and requirements because of the actions of those who acquire weapons illegally.
    Yup. And I have no problem asking all responsible/legal users to go through a couple extra steps to help stop those few bad apples from getting firearms or even making it harder for them to get arms. If it only stops 1....what is the downside? Legal firearms owners still have access to their weapons, still can buy more, still can carry, etc. Is the only downside a little bit of inconvenience?
    "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?

  9. #459
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I see several problems with this post:

    1) Gun laws may be working out where you live. In way too many places they are not. You may need to open your eyes a little more.

    They are working out here pretty well. Why the push from others in other places to change that?


    2) As you pointed out, the vast majority of gun and car owners use them responsibly. Why do responsible drivers not object to speed limits, seat belt laws, licensing requirements, annual equipment inspections, registration requirements, etc? No, there is no push from the left to ban cars. Nor is there a push from the right to march on Washington to protest the above restrictions. Why is there no rhetoric about prying car keys out of your cold dead hands?

    I'm sure most responsible gun owners would have little issues with some requirements, but the problem is that they are not likely to change current situation. The simple facts are a)Many folks who have been involved in mass shootings had little if anything in their past to deny them ownership at the time they bought the weapons and b) most everyday crime using weapons involve weapons were acquired illegally and universal background checks were simply never in play.

    3) As scfire86 pointed out, licensing, registration, background checks, mandatory safety classes, etc are not really punishments. They would just be government mandated conditions under which you could own a gun.

    And they would be additional hoops that would require additional time and costs, as well as delays, for gun owners with no intention of robbing liquor stores or shooting up college campuses. And the reason they would be required would be because of the actions of a few.

    Just like the government mandated conditions under which you can drive a car. Or do a ton of other stuff. I guess I should remind you that guns are one of the few, if not only things, that are designed, built and sold for the singular purpose of killing living things. I am aware that many people target shoot, but was that really the reason they bought the gun in the first place?
    Most people carry weapon s to hunt or for personal defense. Two perfectly legitimate reasons.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  10. #460
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Most people carry weapon s to hunt or for personal defense. Two perfectly legitimate reasons.
    And those folks will still be able to do so if a background check is done on all gun owners.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #461
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    People with criminal records, diagnosed mental illness, or a previous record of using firearms irresponsibly.

    Like the gentleman I cited earlier who pulled a gun on a girl scout knocking on his door to sell him cookies.

    Thanks for the softball.
    And who says that he had any type of history of using weapons irresponsibly?

    And honestly I have my doubts weather even that action should be a disqualifier.

    What type of criminal convictions?

    And exactly who is going to determine the mental illnesses that should be disqualifiers? Who will be qualified to make those decisions? Will there be a requirement for a second opinion?

    How will that information be provided without infringing on personal privacy? Simply way to many questions at this point.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  12. #462
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Yup. And I have no problem asking all responsible/legal users to go through a couple extra steps to help stop those few bad apples from getting firearms or even making it harder for them to get arms. If it only stops 1....what is the downside? Legal firearms owners still have access to their weapons, still can buy more, still can carry, etc. Is the only downside a little bit of inconvenience?
    But I do.

    Again, asking ... well actually, demanding ... those that use guns legally to expend more time and likely expend more cash for a right that is firmly defined in the Constitution, to me, IS a problem, and it is unreasonable. And unconstitutional.

    Deal with those who have guns illegally or are using them illegally. As Fryed has discussed, create national mandated sentences for gun violence so the thugs that use them are locked away for a long time with NO chance of getting out early. Punish them hard and with certainly. If nothing else, it will put them away from society for a long time.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-05-2014 at 05:37 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  13. #463
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Why would you be opposed to background checks that will prevent irresponsible gun owners from gaining access to firearms?
    How do the checks figure out who might be irresponsible vs. who might be responsible? Illegal activity is simple, but irresponsibility and background checks? I'd be interested in how that might work. Surely the rest of the liberals will find condemning youthful indiscretions or certain behaviors discriminatory?

    In the end it's as simple as this being a people problem, not a tool problem.

    As I said before, I have no issue with the checks, I'm not sure they'll be too effective, but as a measure in the right direction, I personally will not be adversely effected in any way. The big caveat is that I see their failure as the next stepping stone toward the anti-gun fringes total ban, thus I don't support helping them make their case. Every step makes the next easier, it's how nearly every set of laws come about.

  14. #464
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Yup. And I have no problem asking all responsible/legal users to go through a couple extra steps to help stop those few bad apples from getting firearms or even making it harder for them to get arms. If it only stops 1....what is the downside? Legal firearms owners still have access to their weapons, still can buy more, still can carry, etc. Is the only downside a little bit of inconvenience?
    Nope, the downside is FURTHER intrusion into the lives of law abiding citizens by the government. You may be okay with that, I am NOT.
    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. #465
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    So a guy with a 6 shot pistol is equal to a guy with a 20 round automatic rifle?

    Maybe your 0 for 2 with facts.
    Went way over your head I guess. My GF is pretty feisty and can hold her own, but even she'll admit she not capable of fighting off a large aggressive male without a weapon. With a Glock in her hands, she's capable of successfully fending off 10-12 aggressors. In the general sense two humans are not equal in a fight due to size, stature, training, etc. Bring the biggest guy into an alley to harm a small female with a gun and suddenly she stands a chance. But the right to self defense is apparently not enough for some.

    Comparing two firearms to each other is just silly. Your scenario above inside the confines of my home I'd say are pretty equal. Outside the home, careful observation and avoidance are always the best defense. One person with either firearms will have the absolute power over the other when unarmed. I'm saying that with the route being advocated, the likely scenario is that a criminal will be the one holding the firearm. Either firearm will kill innocent people in the hands of a criminal willing to do so.

  16. #466
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    So the crux of this issue for you and others is that guns are made to kill and since they serve no other purpose should be treated as serving no useful purpose?

    Guns used to kill animals for food, serve a purpose do they not? Or is killing cows with air actuated bolt guns somehow different? While I prefer to go to the store for 99% of my meals, that is not the case with everybody.

    Guns used to kill a person in the act of committing a violent crime is a useful purpose is it not? Or should we take the guns away from the police? How do you justify this to those persons who have stopped a rape or other violent crime with a firearm? Too bad?

    The problem is that universal checks won't stop most criminals, maybe a handful that start legal and become violent and use their legally owned firearm. In and of itself, I have no issue, personally I'd register my guns, I know if I ever use them I'll be justified in my mind (hopefully at least 12 others too). The problem is that when the universal checks are shown to not have done jack squat, the next step will be greater restriction ( magazine limits, action types, etc, etc).

    I'm 100% for preventing mass shootings, but in the end, unless we have zero firearms in circulation, this is a Utopian dream, and if we cannot guarantee our citizens a country free of people willing and able to do them bodily harm, then we must allow those who are legally competent to utilize firearms for the protection of their families ans selves.

    God created man, firearms made them equal. One of the two of these are fact.
    I did not say they serve no useful purpose. But since their one and only purpose is killing or injuring, I think any reasonable person would agree that some controls should be present.

    Since we can't achieve the Utopian dream of perfection, should we just give up and throw in the towel? Or should we take reasonable, prudent measures to help reduce incidents of gun violence?

    If hunting and home defense are the main reasons for gun ownership I don't see why limits on magazine size or action type would be a real problem.

    An armed citizen stopping a violent crime or rape is kind of a man bites dog situation. Actual incidents are few and far between in relation to criminal use of guns.

  17. #467
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Went way over your head I guess. My GF is pretty feisty and can hold her own, but even she'll admit she not capable of fighting off a large aggressive male without a weapon. With a Glock in her hands, she's capable of successfully fending off 10-12 aggressors. In the general sense two humans are not equal in a fight due to size, stature, training, etc. Bring the biggest guy into an alley to harm a small female with a gun and suddenly she stands a chance. But the right to self defense is apparently not enough for some.

    Comparing two firearms to each other is just silly. Your scenario above inside the confines of my home I'd say are pretty equal. Outside the home, careful observation and avoidance are always the best defense. One person with either firearms will have the absolute power over the other when unarmed. I'm saying that with the route being advocated, the likely scenario is that a criminal will be the one holding the firearm. Either firearm will kill innocent people in the hands of a criminal willing to do so.
    The problem with this type of arguement is that your girlfriend would have to have the gun, loaded and ready to shoot, in her hands at the exact moment it turns out she needs it. Unless she were to walk around 24/7 with that gun in her hand, she'll probably be unprepared at that moment.

    The criminal is ALREADY the one holding the firearm in most cases. If the restrictions on gun sales could change that, how do we not try?

  18. #468
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    The problem with this type of argument is that your girlfriend would have to have the gun, loaded and ready to shoot, in her hands at the exact moment it turns out she needs it. Unless she were to walk around 24/7 with that gun in her hand, she'll probably be unprepared at that moment.
    Agreed. She not to that point yet, and in all honesty I hope nothing changes her mind to require she feel it necessary. In the home is a very different matter. Without a doubt, if there's a sound she's ready. We have no kids, so that argument in my own case has no merit, for others I clearly see a risk/benefit of access and security measures.

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    The criminal is ALREADY the one holding the firearm in most cases. If the restrictions on gun sales could change that, how do we not try?
    How will any of these restriction change that? They're criminal, they have no reason to abide by our laws. In any case if a criminal is already holding a gun, only a good person with a firearms stands any reasonable chance of stopping the act.

  19. #469
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I did not say they serve no useful purpose. But since their one and only purpose is killing or injuring, I think any reasonable person would agree that some controls should be present.
    We have numerous controls that are not working as well as we all can agree they should, I'm still yet to be convinced more will be the answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Since we can't achieve the Utopian dream of perfection, should we just give up and throw in the towel? Or should we take reasonable, prudent measures to help reduce incidents of gun violence?
    If we could only agree on "reasonable and prudent" we'd be as close to Utopia as we could ever find. I do not think we should throw in the towel, in fact I think both sides need to make reasonable concessions that work toward the common goal. I'd be all for registration and universal background checks if I was shown that as long as law abiding reasonable people would be free to continue owning the firearm they choose.
    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    If hunting and home defense are the main reasons for gun ownership I don't see why limits on magazine size or action type would be a real problem.
    If a criminal has access to firearms of any type, then someone wishing to defend themselves and family should not be restricted. Numerous cases show that magazine capacity is a factor. See the North Hollywood shootout as a prime example of the police being outgunned, where most people in the hunting community would have been better prepared. Yes, an extreme example. 6-10 shots when your fight of flight response kicks in is pretty small. It's easy for people to say if you were a good shot you'd not need more than one, but those who've never been in true fear for their life really cannot comprehend the physical state one can be in when it actually happens. This is why trained policemen with perfect marksman scores for years suddenly dump full magazines with few hits when in a true firefight.
    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    An armed citizen stopping a violent crime or rape is kind of a man bites dog situation. Actual incidents are few and far between in relation to criminal use of guns.
    Not as rare as you'd think. One site I visit shows 2-3 a week and that just those they find on the AP wire. Not to mention its far easier to ignore the issue when it's not personal, if it happens to a loved one the perspective changes dramatically. This is where reasonable law abiding citizens should have the choice to elect to take responsibility for themselves if they desire.

  20. #470
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And who says that he had any type of history of using weapons irresponsibly?
    He might not have in the past. But he does now and shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms. We're just lucky that no one got hurt.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And honestly I have my doubts weather even that action should be a disqualifier.
    I'm not surprised. After all. Maybe that pesky girl scout deserved it.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    What type of criminal convictions?
    Felonies.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And exactly who is going to determine the mental illnesses that should be disqualifiers? Who will be qualified to make those decisions? Will there be a requirement for a second opinion?
    Mental health professionals and those who administer the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    How will that information be provided without infringing on personal privacy? Simply way to many questions at this point.
    One is asked those questions are now asked when buying a gun. Shouldn't be too difficult to figure out a way.

    That answer RFDACM02's questions as well.

    Once again the the so called spectre of a tyrannical government coming to take their guns is thrown out as a reason to oppose this process. So we just accept the fact that mass shootings will continue even though they are a rarity in other countries.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-05-2014 at 09:06 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #471
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Once again the the so called spectre of a tyrannical government coming to take their guns is thrown out as a reason to oppose this process. So we just accept the fact that mass shootings will continue even though they are a rarity in other countries.
    It's not a tyrannical government, it's the liberal anti-gun agenda. No tyranny, just misinformed albeit well meaning people doing more harm than good in a misguided effort to stop criminal by making more laws.

    I don't accept more mass shooting, but you have to admit, statistically they're still a rarity here, albeit once is too many. Which on of the recent incidents could have been prevented by any of these measures? It may have made it more difficult, but almost to a man, these killers made it their mission and once on a mission one can find many ways of obtaining illegal firearms or devising other methods to the same end.

  22. #472
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    It's not a tyrannical government, it's the liberal anti-gun agenda. No tyranny, just misinformed albeit well meaning people doing more harm than good in a misguided effort to stop criminal by making more laws.
    Stopping an irresponsible person from getting a weapon is not misguided.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I don't accept more mass shooting, but you have to admit, statistically they're still a rarity here, albeit once is too many. Which on of the recent incidents could have been prevented by any of these measures? It may have made it more difficult, but almost to a man, these killers made it their mission and once on a mission one can find many ways of obtaining illegal firearms or devising other methods to the same end.
    So we should also do away with laws outlawing murder since it is a pretty rare occurrence and a determined murderer will never be stopped.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #473
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Once again the the so called spectre of a tyrannical government coming to take their guns is thrown out as a reason to oppose this process.
    So then how do you explain what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina? Add to that the fact that not a single murder was committed by a legal gun owner. The same can't be said of the cops.

    So we should also do away with laws outlawing murder since it is a pretty rare occurrence and a determined murderer will never be stopped.
    No, but if we outlawed the items most used in murder, we'd all be walking to work, wouldn't be cutting our steak with a knife, or playing baseball with a bat...
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 02-05-2014 at 09:52 PM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  24. #474
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Stopping an irresponsible person from getting a weapon is not misguided.
    Your putting your goal in as proof you method will work, I do not see the outcome being a forgone conclusion. We've yet to see a plan of how to keep firearms out of the hands of irresponsible people without nearly abolishing the rights of reasonable people.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    So we should also do away with laws outlawing murder since it is a pretty rare occurrence and a determined murderer will never be stopped.
    One, murder is far from rare in comparison, and two that's a tired overly simplistic extrapolation used when you have nothing else. Try educating us to how an improved system would help. I'm not beyond seeing reason and logic. I've yet to see a plan that truly details who and how the masses sorted into reasonable and unreasonable. So far you noted the ones already in places, sans the mental health issue as liberal can't decide whose rights they want to protect more.

  25. #475
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    You all are consistent.

    Any discussion of gun policy leads to an infinite amount of "what ifs" and "what abouts."

    We as a nation have numerous requirements to own or manufacture any number of things we touch daily.

    Yet somehow firearms are sacrosanct and should never be examined.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. PG soon.....we hope!?
    By arhaney in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2007, 11:39 AM
  2. Not Exactly Fire Related, But It Fits.
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-28-2004, 11:48 AM
  3. Might there be hope?!!
    By BC79er_OLDDELETE in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 12:04 PM
  4. Any Hope?
    By Kiernan in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-26-2003, 09:48 PM
  5. Hope for the best?
    By Bones42 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-15-2003, 09:57 PM

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register