Like Tree82Likes

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

  1. #976
    Forum Member
    HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    502

    Default

    My wife has several relatives that are police officers in NY. The Sheriffs Association in NY voted to not enforce the SAFE Act, as it was written with so little regard for enforcement that the association felt it could not be enforced. As written, the police officers in NY were going to have to restrict their sidearms the same as the average John Doe on the street. They immediately cried foul that #1 they would not be able to perform their job, and #2 they would have to give up all of the magazines that they had for their personal / backup weapons.

    They also wrote several letters to the governor and the legislature showing how the SAFE Act would in no way reduce crime or gun related crimes, but would instead create thousands more criminals as most people would not give up their weapons and magazines as required in the SAFE Act.

    By the way, the SAFE Act as originally passed called for the confiscation of all "assault weapons", high capacity magazines holding more than 7 rounds of ammunition, and that anyone not turning in these items would be guilty of a felony. After the initial rebuttal by the Sheriff's Association, some of these requirements were changed and/or loosened. But the fact remains that NY State attempted the confiscation of legally owned weapons and found that the law enforcement were the first to protest.
    RFDACM02 likes this.

  2. #977
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    My wife has several relatives that are police officers in NY. The Sheriffs Association in NY voted to not enforce the SAFE Act, as it was written with so little regard for enforcement that the association felt it could not be enforced. As written, the police officers in NY were going to have to restrict their sidearms the same as the average John Doe on the street. They immediately cried foul that #1 they would not be able to perform their job, and #2 they would have to give up all of the magazines that they had for their personal / backup weapons.

    They also wrote several letters to the governor and the legislature showing how the SAFE Act would in no way reduce crime or gun related crimes, but would instead create thousands more criminals as most people would not give up their weapons and magazines as required in the SAFE Act.

    By the way, the SAFE Act as originally passed called for the confiscation of all "assault weapons", high capacity magazines holding more than 7 rounds of ammunition, and that anyone not turning in these items would be guilty of a felony. After the initial rebuttal by the Sheriff's Association, some of these requirements were changed and/or loosened. But the fact remains that NY State attempted the confiscation of legally owned weapons and found that the law enforcement were the first to protest.
    Ain't that amazing.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  3. #978
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    My wife has several relatives that are police officers in NY. The Sheriffs Association in NY voted to not enforce the SAFE Act, as it was written with so little regard for enforcement that the association felt it could not be enforced. As written, the police officers in NY were going to have to restrict their sidearms the same as the average John Doe on the street. They immediately cried foul that #1 they would not be able to perform their job, and #2 they would have to give up all of the magazines that they had for their personal / backup weapons.

    They also wrote several letters to the governor and the legislature showing how the SAFE Act would in no way reduce crime or gun related crimes, but would instead create thousands more criminals as most people would not give up their weapons and magazines as required in the SAFE Act.

    By the way, the SAFE Act as originally passed called for the confiscation of all "assault weapons", high capacity magazines holding more than 7 rounds of ammunition, and that anyone not turning in these items would be guilty of a felony. After the initial rebuttal by the Sheriff's Association, some of these requirements were changed and/or loosened. But the fact remains that NY State attempted the confiscation of legally owned weapons and found that the law enforcement were the first to protest.
    Across the country many sheriff's and police chiefs, as well as patrol officers, have stated that they will not enforce what they view as unconstitutional gun laws. Funny that law enforcement officers, supposedly those most in favor of more gun laws, would be standing up in opposition to them.
    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. #979
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I'm not going to debate the confiscation of firearms by a crooked PD to me that instance was an anomaly that took place without any true legal course. On the other hand, NY has talked about confiscating magazines over 10 rounds, but it appears the law enforcement personnel aren't ready to uphold that law?
    Yet I'm being told that is coming real soon. The only hangup is that I've been hearing it for over four decades.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #980
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You call it paranoid, I call it being mindful of a looming situation.
    RUN!! Buddy, RUN!! The black helicopters are coming!! THWUP!! THWUP!! THWUP!! THWUP!!

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You the mindless drone propaganda machine are consistent in your constant painting anyone who doesn't buy your party line as paranoid or a wacko.
    You're no less a mindless drone in claiming that any discussion of firearm policy is a prelude to confiscation and tyranny.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Too bad you can't see how infringed your gun owner rights are in California. But heck, if you are happy living like that party on. I'll keep my improperly labeled, by the anti-gun crowd, firearms, and my standard capacity magazines that you can't even dream of owning. But I have the CHOICE as a free citizen to own them or not where I live, YOU DON'T. Remind me again how your rights haven't been infringed?
    I have the right to bear arms in CA. The Constitution says nothing about magazine capacity. Somehow without high capacity magazines we manage to enjoy target shooting, hunting, and self defense. None of those activities are dependent upon that capability.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-18-2014 at 04:04 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #981
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Again, laws being passed and/or proposed that make the average, everyday, law abiding gun owner a criminal. I have yet to hear a cognitive factual argument to prove other. Read a lot of nonsensical BS concerning taxes, license, registration and the likes. Didn't take much to discount that.
    Still absolutely hysterical a law abiding gun owner that fears the whittling away of rights is paranoid. Yet every so called paranoid issue has undeniably reared its ugly head. Up to and including the forced confiscation of guns from legal, law abiding gun owners by armed police.
    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

  7. #982
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Thousands of people are killed in various ways every year.

    The number that are killed in "mass shootings" is statistically insignificant.

    While tragic, reshaping our gun policy and discussing the removal or limitation of a constitutional right as basis and fundamental as gun ownership because of these very rare events makes absolutely no sense.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  8. #983
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Again, laws being passed and/or proposed that make the average, everyday, law abiding gun owner a criminal. I have yet to hear a cognitive factual argument to prove other. Read a lot of nonsensical BS concerning taxes, license, registration and the likes. Didn't take much to discount that.
    Still absolutely hysterical a law abiding gun owner that fears the whittling away of rights is paranoid. Yet every so called paranoid issue has undeniably reared its ugly head. Up to and including the forced confiscation of guns from legal, law abiding gun owners by armed police.
    What rights are being whittled? The right to bear arms is still in place. I'm only asking that one fill out forms that are less demanding than what is required for a credit card.

    Law abiding gun owners will still be able to obtain firearms.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #984
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    RUN!! Buddy, RUN!! The black helicopters are coming!! THWUP!! THWUP!! THWUP!! THWUP!!


    Funny you said almost the same thing during the 8 years of George Bush. The one sounding wacko here is you. You can't debate with facts, evn when they are shoved in your face so you go the clown route.

    You're no less a mindless drone in claiming that any discussion of firearm policy is a prelude to confiscation and tyranny.

    You are so blind that you can't see how far your gun rights have already been infringed upon in the once great state of california.


    I have the right to bear arms in CA. The Constitution says nothing about magazine capacity. Somehow without high capacity magazines we manage to enjoy target shooting, hunting, and self defense. None of those activities are dependent upon that capability.

    Golly if magazine capacity doesn't matter why do police officers routinely carry pistols with capacities of between 13 and 17 rounds and then carry 2 to 4 spare magazines that carry 13 to 17 rounds? Why do their patrol or SWAT rifles or sub machine guns need magazines of 20 to 30 or more rounds? If magazine capacity never matters why can't they be restricted to the 10 round magazines the rest of you uninfringed ctizens carry? I guess it DOES matter, but apprently only to police officers. Right? They are the only ones that ever have to deal with multiple assailants. Right?
    Keep singing the party line. How you are uninfringed by being limited in what firearms, that are perfectly legal in most other states, you can buy, what magazine capacity you can own, and how many firearms are misidentified to meet some criteria to allow banning.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 02-18-2014 at 05:28 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

  10. #985
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    What rights are being whittled? The right to bear arms is still in place. I'm only asking that one fill out forms that are less demanding than what is required for a credit card.

    Law abiding gun owners will still be able to obtain firearms.
    It's the asinine, unproven, thoughtless restrictions put forth by an uneducated electorate. Example, why is 10 rounds the number, when the average clip capacity is 15 for 9mm, 13 for 40mm, and 10 for .45? Or pistol still grip? More then 7 rounds in a detachable magazine in such firearms like a rugar 1022? sure, some ****ant politician feels good about doing something, yet not a single one of these has at all proven to be effective. It's akin to passing a law that cars can only have 3 wheels to prevent speeding.
    Confiscation is the end run, watch this. Yes, up front I will admit its a pro-gun forum, but it is direct video tape footage of politician comments. http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-la...say-otherwise/
    How about we fill out forms equivalent to what is needed to vote? That way I really don't need to worry about positive ID.
    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

  11. #986
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Keep singing the party line. How you are uninfringed by being limited in what firearms, that are perfectly legal in most other states, you can buy, what magazine capacity you can own, and how many firearms are misidentified to meet some criteria to allow banning.
    This is just so precious. Somehow magazine capacity is now an indicator of freedom.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #987
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    This is just so precious. Somehow magazine capacity is now an indicator of freedom.
    Well, yes it is ........
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  13. #988
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    This is just so precious. Somehow magazine capacity is now an indicator of freedom.
    Ah, the standard snotty phony superiority line. So predictable. Too bad that is just an admission of defeat. But then again you live in a state that brain washes you into accepting defeat and right infringement as a normal daily event.

    Enjoy your phony superiority and hopefully you can reload quick enough into the imaginary guns you say you own if the 10 rounds you can have aren't enough.

    Ah the joy of a 25 round clip when I am plinking...Can you feel that? It is freedom floating across the wisconsin sky, uninfringed!!
    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

  14. #989
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Well, yes it is ........
    No it isn't. Magazines as they exist now hadn't even been thought of to be invented when the document was written.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Ah, the standard snotty phony superiority line. So predictable. Too bad thatis just an admission of defeat. But then again you live in a state that brain washes you into accepting defeat and right infringement as a normal daily event.
    Hahahaha. It's not an admission of anything. Your perceptions of my pretentiousness are no less different than yours when you claim some moral high ground that doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Enjoy your phony superiority and hopefully you can reload quick enough into the imaginary guns you say you own if the 10 rounds you can have aren't enough.
    I've never needed more than 10 rounds to do the things I do with firearms. Don't blame your poor marksmanship on me.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Ah the joy of a 25 round clip when I am plinking...Can you feel that? It is freedom floating across the wisconsin sky, uninfringed!!
    See above post.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #990
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    No it isn't. Magazines as they exist now hadn't even been thought of to be invented when the document was written.

    Neither were telegraphs, telephones, computers, cell phones, the internet, and more...yet free speech has for the most part survived and adapted to technology.


    Hahahaha. It's not an admission of anything. Your perceptions of my pretentiousness are no less different than yours when you claim some moral high ground that doesn't exist.

    I don't claim anything except uninfringed means uninfringed. You claim it means it's okay for the state to decide what you can own and as long as you can own what they say you can own that means uninfringed.

    You sir are the king of snootiness and pretentiousness. When you get your a z z handed to you you play this game of superiority that makes you look foolish and like a loser. Everyone here sees it and everyone here laughs at you over it. So play on, the world needs more comedy.



    I've never needed more than 10 rounds to do the things I do with firearms. Don't blame your poor marksmanship on me.

    Golly, I guess amybe you are the king of firearms too then. Funny thing is police that make their living with their guns often use more than 10 rounds when engaged in a shooting confrontation. Maybe you should get off your couch and become a firearms instructor. You can go nationwide and tell all these cops how pitiful they are and all you have ever needed in all the shootouts with hostile targets shoting at you is 10 rounds. Do tell how many shoot outs you have been in, or is this just more of your hypothetical nonsense since you have no real world experience of being shot at or returning fire under hostile conditions?


    See above post.

    Freedom, the choice to choose without unnecessary, unneeded, or unwanted government influence or oppression into areas that they have no need to be involved in. Too bad you can't even recognize it anymore.
    Isn't it time for you to go clean your imaginary guns?
    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

  16. #991
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,693

    Default

    Another news story today about a legal gun owner killing someone they didn't mean to. He just meant to scare them...by shooting at their car?
    "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?

  17. #992
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,693

    Default

    Personally, I'm pretty saddened to hear there are sworn police officers who openly admit to not enforcing the law.
    "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?

  18. #993
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've never needed more than 10 rounds to do the things I do with firearms. Don't blame your poor marksmanship on me.
    Have you ever needed to use a firearms to defend your life or that of another? You failto acknowledge that the body's "Fight or Flight" response is nearly impossible to control or know how it will physically manifest itself. This is the single greatest reason that police officers with tons or firearms training time and even simunitions training only hit 25% of what they're shooting at when in an actual firefight. Hit 10 out of 10 static targets only says you have a proficient base to start from, but when you lose finite motor skills, your ability to make fancy Hollywood
    shots goes out the window. Remember the story last year about the young mother and kids whose home was broken into? She hid with her children in the crawlspace and only when the perp enter the space did she shoot at him. 5 Rounds from a revolver at a man mere feet away in the door and he managed to get away. I'm sure she wished she'd had a few more rounds "just in case".

  19. #994
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Neither were telegraphs, telephones, computers, cell phones, the internet, and more...yet free speech has for the most part survived and adapted to technology.
    Let me know when any of those are used to commit mass murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I don't claim anything except uninfringed means uninfringed. You claim it means it's okay for the state to decide what you can own and as long as you can own what they say you can own that means uninfringed.
    The word is "infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You sir are the king of snootiness and pretentiousness. When you get your a z z handed to you you play this game of superiority that makes you look foolish and like a loser. Everyone here sees it and everyone here laughs at you over it. So play on, the world needs more comedy.
    Which is exactly what you're doing. Only from the other side.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Golly, I guess amybe you are the king of firearms too then. Funny thing is police that make their living with their guns often use more than 10 rounds when engaged in a shooting confrontation. Maybe you should get off your couch and become a firearms instructor. You can go nationwide and tell all these cops how pitiful they are and all you have ever needed in all the shootouts with hostile targets shoting at you is 10 rounds. Do tell how many shoot outs you have been in, or is this just more of your hypothetical nonsense since you have no real world experience of being shot at or returning fire under hostile conditions?
    So what? Who cares about what the police have or don't have. They doesn't infringe on my or your right to bear arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Freedom, the choice to choose without unnecessary, unneeded, or unwanted government influence or oppression into areas that they have no need to be involved in. Too bad you can't even recognize it anymore.
    Except your freedom to bear arms isn't impacted by magazine capacity.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Isn't it time for you to go clean your imaginary guns?
    Funny. I bet I know more about guns than you. Keep thinking they're imaginary. Fantasy is all you have left.

    Much like your delusions of confiscation and tyranny.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #995
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Personally, I'm pretty saddened to hear there are sworn police officers who openly admit to not enforcing the law.
    You feel the same way about police officers not enforcing marijuana laws? Or stopping everyone who goes over the speed limit? At some point their already busy enough without helping make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

  21. #996
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Have you ever needed to use a firearms to defend your life or that of another? You failto acknowledge that the body's "Fight or Flight" response is nearly impossible to control or know how it will physically manifest itself.
    How does not having that experience impact the right to bear arms?

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    This is the single greatest reason that police officers with tons or firearms training time and even simunitions training only hit 25% of what they're shooting at when in an actual firefight. Hit 10 out of 10 static targets only says you have a proficient base to start from, but when you lose finite motor skills, your ability to make fancy Hollywood shots goes out the window. Remember the story last year about the young mother and kids whose home was broken into? She hid with her children in the crawlspace and only when the perp enter the space did she shoot at him. 5 Rounds from a revolver at a man mere feet away in the door and he managed to get away. I'm sure she wished she'd had a few more rounds "just in case".
    Which has nothing to do with my right to bear arms.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  22. #997
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Except your freedom to bear arms isn't impacted by magazine capacity.
    Actually, given the SCOTUS opinions on the 2nd Amendment it very well could be. If "militia" means able bodies persons available to be conscripted, then why would they limit the firearms to less than those used by other troops in defense of our nation. Magazine capacity is directly related to ones ability to defend his person or home in a real world situation. The fact that those who are expected to face armed opponents (LEO's, Fed agents, DOE guards, Soldiers) are given high-capacity magazines speaks directly to those who intend on defending against the same.

  23. #998
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Actually, given the SCOTUS opinions on the 2nd Amendment it very well could be. If "militia" means able bodies persons available to be conscripted, then why would they limit the firearms to less than those used by other troops in defense of our nation. Magazine capacity is directly related to ones ability to defend his person or home in a real world situation. The fact that those who are expected to face armed opponents are given high-capacity magazines speaks directly to those who intend on defending against the same.
    For the same reason one is not allowed to own a TOW or Trident missile.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #999
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    How does not having that experience impact the right to bear arms?



    Which has nothing to do with my right to bear arms.
    Now your just a dog chasing it's tail. Debate the issues as you bring them up. The Right to Bear Arms is infringed when you diminish ones capacity to defend themselves or their home.

  25. #1000
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    For the same reason one is not allowed to own a TOW or Trident missile.
    Most people do not need to defend against military weapons, but they do need defense against standard firearms. When was the last home invasion with a TOW missle or grenade launcher. Try staying within the realm of reality.

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