LGP Political Discussion Thread

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby DelPen on Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:14 am

Only problem with that 2A rant was that your interpretation of militia is viewed in today's military prism. The people are the unorganized militia. In colonial times it was whoever decided to show up with a musket was who was used to defend person and property. No one was beholden to anyone else.

Regulated also does not mean the same as regulations mean today. It's trained and equipped. The 2A has always been about preventing the government from hindering the ability of the people to protect themselves from whatever threat comes about.
DelPen
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 36,388
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:27 am
Location: Lake Wylie, SC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby PensFanInDC on Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:15 am

It seems that the 2nd amendment is specifically written to protect "A well regulated militia" and the people therein to bear arms. It could even be interpreted to mean that common folk not involved in a well regulated militia have no right to bear arms. I do not make that argument though.
PensFanInDC
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 27,916
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby DelPen on Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:37 am

the comma actually means something, the important part is what's after. It's moot anyways, US code defines everyone able bodied in this country who wants to be here as part of the unorganized militia.
DelPen
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 36,388
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:27 am
Location: Lake Wylie, SC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Pitt87 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:32 pm

PensFanInDC wrote:It seems that the 2nd amendment is specifically written to protect "A well regulated militia" and the people therein to bear arms. It could even be interpreted to mean that common folk not involved in a well regulated militia have no right to bear arms. I do not make that argument though.


No, it can't. The right to bear arms belongs to the people to ensure that a well-regulated militia is possible; there is no way to interpret that the right belongs to a well regulated militia. The text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Pitt87
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,490
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:33 am
Location: Admin wrote:Rooting for the Flyers is not allowed here. Seriously.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:47 pm

Pitt87 wrote:
PensFanInDC wrote:It seems that the 2nd amendment is specifically written to protect "A well regulated militia" and the people therein to bear arms. It could even be interpreted to mean that common folk not involved in a well regulated militia have no right to bear arms. I do not make that argument though.


No, it can't. The right to bear arms belongs to the people to ensure that a well-regulated militia is possible; there is no way to interpret that the right belongs to a well regulated militia. The text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Am I allowed to possess an F-16 and an M1 Abrams?

Just wondering... :pop:
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:50 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/?partner=yahootix

Some good information at this link. This is going to be the crowning "achievement" of the eight years of the Obama Administration and their allies in Congress. What a legacy to leave behind.

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.


“Premiums nationwide will also be around 16 percent lower than originally expected,” HHS cheerfully announces in its press release. But that’s a ruse. HHS compared what the Congressional Budget Office projected rates might look like—in 2016—to its own findings. Neither of those numbers tells you the stat that really matters: how much rates will go up next year, under Obamacare, relative to this year, prior to the law taking effect.

Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin agrees. “There are literally no comparisons to current rates. That is, HHS has chosen to dodge the question of whose rates are going up, and how much. Instead they try to distract with a comparison to a hypothetical number that has nothing to do with the actual experience of real people.”


Image
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 60,559
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby DelPen on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:53 pm

If it wasn't abundantly clear before it should be now that the design of Obamacare was equality in the system but instead of raising up the bottom it is throwing everyone else down to overpriced craptacular health insurance.

So that 30 million that will still not have insurance come next week, are those the same 30 million that this was supposed to help or is this a different group of 30 million people who had their plans cancelled and can't afford the new ones?
DelPen
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 36,388
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:27 am
Location: Lake Wylie, SC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Pitt87 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:05 pm

ExPatriatePen wrote:
Pitt87 wrote:
PensFanInDC wrote:It seems that the 2nd amendment is specifically written to protect "A well regulated militia" and the people therein to bear arms. It could even be interpreted to mean that common folk not involved in a well regulated militia have no right to bear arms. I do not make that argument though.


No, it can't. The right to bear arms belongs to the people to ensure that a well-regulated militia is possible; there is no way to interpret that the right belongs to a well regulated militia. The text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Am I allowed to possess an F-16 and an M1 Abrams?

Just wondering... :pop:


Are you asking my opinion or how the law is generally applied? They might be different... hard to know for sure... :slug:
Pitt87
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,490
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:33 am
Location: Admin wrote:Rooting for the Flyers is not allowed here. Seriously.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:13 pm

columbia wrote:tifosi has obviously never seen "Red Dawn."

Don't they all end up dead at the end of the movie?

DelPen wrote:Only problem with that 2A rant was that your interpretation of militia is viewed in today's military prism. The people are the unorganized militia. In colonial times it was whoever decided to show up with a musket was who was used to defend person and property. No one was beholden to anyone else.

Regulated also does not mean the same as regulations mean today. It's trained and equipped. The 2A has always been about preventing the government from hindering the ability of the people to protect themselves from whatever threat comes about.

I agree that 'regulated' in this context does not mean 'legislatively restricted', nor have I ever made a contrary argument.

The militia was not 'whoever decided to show up'. Militia service was seen as a civic duty in the 18th century, and the routine muster of your local militia was also a very important social construct; it was often times the only way people on the frontier could get news of the regional goings on. So any discussion of what the militia means today is folly without a fundamental recasting of the 2d Amendment, and that has been the case sine the Militia Act of 1903 and (perhaps moreso) the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933. The whole construct of the military is different today than it was in 1791, when the Amendment was drafted in such a way as to allow people to answer a call to muster with their own weapons. And that's just not how it works today.

As regards the unorganized militia.... what is your unit? What does your chain of command look like? What is the order of battle for your unit? What is its drill schedule? What are your unit's requirements for training? Fitness? Marksmanship? Safety? In other words... how 'well regulated' (meaning trained and organized) is the unorganized militia? Or is it just your shooting buddies at the range venting about Obamacare and Nacy Pelosi? I know several states (SC in particular) have sort of grabbed ahold of this notion of the 'unorganized militia' as some sort of vestige of the actual intent of the 2d Amendment, but it's...... structurally vague, at best. (As far as I know, the concept of the 'unorganized militia' has never been really challenged or questioned in court.) The real savior of the day has been Heller.

Which makes for an interesting situation. If the broad interpretation of the 2d Amendment was as you assert - "The 2A has always been about preventing the government from hindering the ability of the people to protect themselves from whatever threat comes about." [emphasis mine] - then 1) there would have been no Heller in 2008, because 2) that concept would have been articulated a helluva lot sooner than 217 years after the ratification and adoption of the Amendment. Heller is important for the precise reason that it was the first time in the history of the republic the thing that which you claim is the heart of the 2d amendment was actually recognized. I find it incredulous to believe that in the preceding 216 years, people just "didn't get it". It was an evolutionary process, not a sudden recognition of that which had always been there.

All that said, I'm certainly happy to exercise those rights - and, *gasp*, would even like to buy a Murder Death ASSAULT RIFLE With Child Killer Magazine Clips. I just don't think I have a Constitutionally protected right to do it.
Last edited by tifosi77 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Gaucho on Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:14 pm

Do you have to carry your gun to the grocery store to be considered part of a well-regulated militia?
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 44,371
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Ignoranti

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:24 pm

tifosi77 wrote:The individual right to possess firearms did not exist outside the context of militia service until fairly recently...

I know you are basing your view on scholarship you have read (was it A Well-Regulated Militia?; I forget), and I doubt you would be surprised to hear that I have read scholarship that completely disagrees with that view. The Constitution itself was a compromise document between people and states with widely varying views, and I'm not sure that even Madison, Jefferson, et al. actually had a single recognized interpretation of what they were enacting.

I simply cannot take it seriously when people say the guns in their safe are to protect them against the tyranny of the government. It's just so much foil hat nonsense that I have a hard time understanding how reasonably intelligent people can even arrive that sort of mental construct that has them look at a carbine and say, "Ah yes.... this will keep the 2nd Battalion /1st Marines bottled up at Pendleton and out of my business."

I'm not necessarily saying it will keep the Marines bottled up, I'm saying it will keep the politicians bottled up. For example, those politicians have to sleep somewhere at night, many of them have families, and many of them (and their families) have to walk outside on occasion. Which is when someone with a .338 Lapua and a quality scope could put a bullet through their (or their wife, son, or daughter's) head from hundreds of meters away. I'm also not saying that Americans would suddenly become adept at guerrilla tactics. But we may have learned a thing or two over recent years about terrorist tactics. If pushed hard enough, would a subset of Americans resort to that? I think they would.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:52 pm

Shyster wrote:
tifosi77 wrote:The individual right to possess firearms did not exist outside the context of militia service until fairly recently...

I know you are basing your view on scholarship you have read (was it A Well-Regulated Militia?; I forget), and I doubt you would be surprised to hear that I have read scholarship that completely disagrees with that view. The Constitution itself was a compromise document between people and states with widely varying views, and I'm not sure that even Madison, Jefferson, et al. actually had a single recognized interpretation of what they were enacting.

That book is a severe case of confirmation bias on my part, and I freely admit to it. It expresses a lot of what I've come to believe over the years based upon my own reading, and does it in a much more organized fashion than I could hope to do on my own.

I should clarify that the statement you quoted there should be interpreted as being solely in the context of the 2d Amendment. In the years following the Revolution, there were plenty of statutory examples at the state level - even the state constitutional level - whereby the private ownership of arms for legitimate purposes (like self-defense) were recognized. I don't dispute that at all, nor do I question the legitimacy of such legislation; contrary to what many may think, I do believe in the natural right of self-defense and that the best way to accomplish that is with arms. I just don't think the 2d Amendment is the vehicle for the recognition of that right, nor do I believe that the Framers had any intention of it being so.

Shyster wrote:
I simply cannot take it seriously when people say the guns in their safe are to protect them against the tyranny of the government. It's just so much foil hat nonsense that I have a hard time understanding how reasonably intelligent people can even arrive that sort of mental construct that has them look at a carbine and say, "Ah yes.... this will keep the 2nd Battalion /1st Marines bottled up at Pendleton and out of my business."

I'm not necessarily saying it will keep the Marines bottled up, I'm saying it will keep the politicians bottled up. For example, those politicians have to sleep somewhere at night, many of them have families, and many of them (and their families) have to walk outside on occasion. Which is when someone with a .338 Lapua and a quality scope could put a bullet through their (or their wife, son, or daughter's) head from hundreds of meters away. I'm also not saying that Americans would suddenly become adept at guerrilla tactics. But we may have learned a thing or two over recent years about terrorist tactics. If pushed hard enough, would a subset of Americans resort to that? I think they would.

I can't believe a lawyer on a public forum just put forward the argument that the 2d Amendment effectively greenlights murder.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:09 pm

The disturbing part is that I wasn't surprised by it.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,889
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:20 pm

tifosi77 wrote:I can't believe a lawyer on a public forum just put forward the argument that the 2d Amendment effectively greenlights murder.

I should hope it never gets to that. But the difference between “murder” on one hand and “fighting tyranny” on the other is as broad and undefined as many of the mysteries of life. That politicians must always be wary of stepping over that line is something that gives me comfort, and the 2A is there to make sure we remain capable of drawing such a line. Governments are made up of men, and if government dissolves into tyranny, then the men comprising that government are fair targets.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:25 pm

Shyster wrote:
tifosi77 wrote:I can't believe a lawyer on a public forum just put forward the argument that the 2d Amendment effectively greenlights murder.

I should hope it never gets to that. But the difference between “murder” on one hand and “fighting tyranny” on the other is as broad and undefined as many of the mysteries of life. That politicians must always be wary of stepping over that line is something that gives me comfort, and the 2A is there to make sure we remain capable of drawing such a line. Governments are made up of men, and if government dissolves into tyranny, then the men comprising that government are fair targets.

As I've said in other contexts the definition 'terrorism' is largely dependent upon which side of the explosion you are on. Then again, I'm pretty sure that executing a politician's family would be universally considered murder.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:28 pm

tifosi77 wrote:
I can't believe a lawyer on a public forum just put forward the argument that the 2d Amendment effectively greenlights murder.

Not really, it's the possibility of it that will keep them honest.
I don't think Americans, as a rule, will resort, in mass, to the type of actions (murder) that their Governement has been known to take against them. (Ruby Ridge and Waco being two prime examples)

As I write this I'm sitting in a rental car in Oklahoma City, the site of the citizen uprising in response to those incidents. I'm not saying what McVie did was appropriate, but when your government starts murdering citizens like they did in those two instances, what is the appropriate response?
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:46 pm

tifosi77 wrote:As I've said in other contexts the definition 'terrorism' is largely dependent upon which side of the explosion you are on. Then again, I'm pretty sure that executing a politician's family would be universally considered murder.

Maybe so. But if so, then so was firebombing Dresden and Tokyo and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If attacking cities full of citizen noncombatants is okey-dokey, then surely a more surgical targeting of certain other citizens would also be acceptable.

To borrow one of our president’s favorite phrases: Let me be clear. For what I’m talking about to be in any way acceptable, the government would have to have dissolved into unmistakable tyranny. I’m talking about people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps. I’m not greenlighting some “sovereign citizen” clown who just doesn’t want to pay his income taxes.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MWB on Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:46 pm

Shyster wrote:I'm not necessarily saying it will keep the Marines bottled up, I'm saying it will keep the politicians bottled up. For example, those politicians have to sleep somewhere at night, many of them have families, and many of them (and their families) have to walk outside on occasion. Which is when someone with a .338 Lapua and a quality scope could put a bullet through their (or their wife, son, or daughter's) head from hundreds of meters away. I'm also not saying that Americans would suddenly become adept at guerrilla tactics. But we may have learned a thing or two over recent years about terrorist tactics. If pushed hard enough, would a subset of Americans resort to that? I think they would.


First, this is a scary thought process.

Second, in the court decisions regarding the Second Amendment, has there been mention of people needing guns to keep politicians at bay?
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,748
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:47 pm

ExPatriatePen wrote:
tifosi77 wrote:
I can't believe a lawyer on a public forum just put forward the argument that the 2d Amendment effectively greenlights murder.

Not really, it's the possibility of it that will keep them honest.
I don't think Americans, as a rule, will resort, in mass, to the type of actions (murder) that their Governement has been known to take against them. (Ruby Ridge and Waco being two prime examples)

As I write this I'm sitting in a rental car in Oklahoma City, the site of the citizen uprising in response to those incidents. I'm not saying what McVie did was appropriate, but when your government starts murdering citizens like they did in those two instances, what is the appropriate response?

This is wholly vile and shameful.

Never again invoke your presence in NYC on 9/11 if you think in any way shape or form that what Tim McVeigh did was a 'citizen uprising', half-hearted "I'm not saying it was right" disclaimers aside.

Disgusting.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Troy Loney on Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:51 pm

So we're advocating terrorism in here now?
Troy Loney
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 28,922
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:10 am
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:57 pm

tifosi77 wrote:
ExPatriatePen wrote:
tifosi77 wrote:
I can't believe a lawyer on a public forum just put forward the argument that the 2d Amendment effectively greenlights murder.

Not really, it's the possibility of it that will keep them honest.
I don't think Americans, as a rule, will resort, in mass, to the type of actions (murder) that their Governement has been known to take against them. (Ruby Ridge and Waco being two prime examples)

As I write this I'm sitting in a rental car in Oklahoma City, the site of the citizen uprising in response to those incidents. I'm not saying what McVie did was appropriate, but when your government starts murdering citizens like they did in those two instances, what is the appropriate response?

This is wholly vile and shameful.

Never again invoke your presence in NYC on 9/11 if you think in any way shape or form that what Tim McVeigh did was a 'citizen uprising', half-hearted "I'm not saying it was right" disclaimers aside.

Disgusting.

In McVies mind it absolutely was a response to those events.
And 9-11 has no relevance in the context of this discussion about 2A.

On top of that, I'm absolutely offended by your characterization of my statement that what McVie did was wrong as being "Half Hearted". That's a very offensive supposition on your part.
I'm sitting here less than two miles from the spot of that incident. It's extremely offensive to me that you'd think I'd be so callous as to have supported such an action.
I also think Waco and Ruby Ridge were inexcusable (and none of those individuals served a day for their offenses). Yet you neglected to address those events in your response against my character.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:00 pm

Troy Loney wrote:So we're advocating terrorism in here now?

No more than the second amendment advocates militias rising up against a tyrannical government.
Everyone in here needs to collect themseilves before they attack each others character and the thread gets closed once and for all.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Troy Loney on Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:02 pm

ExPatriatePen wrote:
Troy Loney wrote:So we're advocating terrorism in here now?

No more than the second amendment advocates militias rising up against a tyrannical government.
Everyone in here needs to collect themseilves before they attack each others character and the thread gets close once and for all.


Before telling people what to do, you should think a little harder about what your saying and how it will be viewed by others with different perspectives than your own.
Troy Loney
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 28,922
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:10 am
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:08 pm

Troy Loney wrote:
ExPatriatePen wrote:
Troy Loney wrote:So we're advocating terrorism in here now?

No more than the second amendment advocates militias rising up against a tyrannical government.
Everyone in here needs to collect themseilves before they attack each others character and the thread gets close once and for all.


Before telling people what to do, you should think a little harder about what your saying and how it will be viewed by others with different perspectives than your own.

Saying what? That what McVeigh did was motivated by his belief that the government murdered people at Waco and Ruby Ridge? That's indisputable.
You ought to do some research if you don't believe that's the case.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Troy Loney on Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:11 pm

it's a terrorist attack. using other language like "citizen uprising" is not going to sit well with most people.
Troy Loney
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 28,922
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:10 am
Location: Pittsburgh

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


e-mail