Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Please post your real life stories where carrying for self-defense has made a difference.

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby bagpiper » Wed 20 Apr 2016 8:38 pm

J_dazzle23 wrote:I'm sorry guys....but both of you- you're cracking me up here.


I don't think I cracked you up. It is clear I've offended you. And for that I'm sorry. It was and is not my intention. If you are encouraging folks to contact LDS leaders while obeying the law and policy, then I can't fault that a bit. But I missed it and I apologize for that as well. Please forgive me.

J_dazzle23 wrote:I also have been giving it quite a bit of thought since the thread piped up, and continued to do so through your comment. So please don't discredit my thoughts on the matter by simply assuming I didn't read or think about your points. You have made the same ones repeatedly.


I know I'm verbose. It turns some folks off. But I really think there is value to some discussion and back and forth. And I'm noticing that most of those who periodically express various degrees of cavalier-ness about the church/home gun ban and LDS policy don't much care to discuss.

You and I usually have a good discussion even when we disagree as we did on capital punishment. But on this issue, you asked a question about the non-religious difference between carrying into an LDS Church and into a Costco. Turns out you didn't really want to discuss that as when the answer was provided you immediately changed course to something else.

That is your right, of course. But it caused me to question the reason for your inquiry. Was it really to understand the legal, political, or other differences? Was it to suggest that because I carry into Costco others are equally justified in carrying into churches that have banned guns? Was it to encourage equal deference to business policies as to church/home policies and State law? I have no idea.

What Mel and I have written is not that the issue isn't worthy of discussion. It is that there can be no hint of violating the law or policy. The political costs are too high (completely ignoring any personal religious costs, which for active members of a faith that does ban guns, I think are likely to be quite high, eventually).

As I wrote previously, I think folks ought to treat Utah laws on banning guns in churches and private homes very much the same way they treat the laws on machine guns, silencers, etc. We can complain about and disagree with such laws all day long. We can consider how we might get such laws repealed. We can explain why repealing the laws is a really good idea. But no sensible gun owner would ever even joke or hint or make thinly veiled hypotheticals in any public setting about violating class III laws. Indeed, most posts complaining about class III laws will include some disclaimer (at least implicit) that the poster is obeying the laws no matter how much he dislikes them.

I believe that needs to be the tone and message of posts regarding the LDS church gun ban.

All the best.

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby bagpiper » Wed 20 Apr 2016 8:47 pm

D-FIN wrote:..... Luckily many of the men of the ward caught on to what was happening and prevented it from happening quite vehemently. However if this couple would have produced weapons and caused trouble it could have turned ugly fast.


No doubt about it, the decision of President Thomas S. Monson to continue the policy of banning guns in LDS house of worship looks foolish in many cases to many persons. In fact, you don't even have to throw out hypotheticals about interesting situations that could turn ugly if a bad guy is the only person in a church with a gun. We've had reports in the last few years of the LDS Bishop being shot in the building in Cali and a member of an LDS congregation being shot in the parking lot on her way into (or out of, I forget) church by a crazed estranged ex-husband.

I think it safe to say that nobody here likes the ban. We'd all be thrilled if President Monson, the 1st Presidency, and Quorum of the Twelve were to eliminate the policy tomorrow.

I encourage you to make your concerns known to your Stake President and to any LDS General Authorities or General Officers with whom you have a relationship that would permit you to raise such concerns with them. I will offer my assistance with any meeting you may be able to arrange with LDS Church officials on this matter.

But so long as the policy remains in place, law-abiding gun owners have no choice (if they wish to retain the adjective "law-abiding") but to abide the law, one way or another. Observant LDS have religious obligations to sustain President Monson in his duties and right to set mundane polices even if we don't agree with them. And non-LDS have an obligation to respect the wishes of what items churches desire not to have brought onto their holy ground.

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby quychang » Wed 20 Apr 2016 10:12 pm

J, we have had some great and supportive discussions in the past and I'm sorry if you thought the 3 year old comment was aimed specifically at you. It was NOT. Your entries from early in the thread until now have noticeably evolved, and no I'm not saying shut up, it can't be discussed. Arguing for approaching the appropriate authorities with concerns is not the same thing as blatantly saying that you don't consider it a law and therefore will do as you please. It's been awhile in the thread since it was quite that blatant, but read back just a few posts and you'll see what I meant.

I've always considered you a friend, and I rarely disagree with you. Reading the tone of your last few posts in particular, I don't disagree with you now. But you're not the only one posting, and I have a tough time with people still advocating what amounts to civil disobedience this far into the discussion. Again, if I offended you, I'm truly sorry, and if you want to take that discussion to P.M. I'll be happy to talk to you about it. I, like all of us, get frustrated. and I know this can be both a frustrating and divisive subject. I would just as soon not have it ruin our friendship.

Mel
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby J_dazzle23 » Thu 21 Apr 2016 1:06 am

Mel and Charles-

No hard feelings! Internet is not serious business, and my post truly was a laughing matter to me in many ways simply because I couldn't believe y'all were actually gonna go there with me.

It seemed I read too far into your posts and for that I'm just as much to blame as you guys. No hard feelings at all.

As to your point Charles-

1- I was incorrectly under the impression that a business could charge you with trespassing simply for entering with a gun without permission. That's my bad.

2- I failed to make it clear that ethically, I DONT think there is actually a difference in breaking that rule(or law) in a business or a church. Legally, yes- but allow me my musing ;)

I'm not equating a church to a business. Not at all. I'm just simply stating that because a church should get different treatment than a business, I don't believe property rights are in any way less important for a privately owned business.

Hopefully that provides clarification for where I was coming from.

And as a final word- and a blatant excuse- I'm 2 weeks away from my wife having our first, 3 weeks away from boards, trying to get hired as an ER nurse, sleeping about 4 hours a night, and all the while my wife is in nursing school right now.

I MAY....have gotten unjustly hot under the collar.

Sorry guys :)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby bagpiper » Thu 21 Apr 2016 5:42 pm

J_dazzle23 wrote:No hard feelings! Internet is not serious business, and my post truly was a laughing matter to me in many ways simply because I couldn't believe y'all were actually gonna go there with me.

It seemed I read too far into your posts and for that I'm just as much to blame as you guys. No hard feelings at all.


Thanks. Best of luck to you on your boards. And good luck with the new addition to the family. I hate to bear bad news, but your sleep schedule is not going to improve any. :D

In all seriousness, I highly recommend one book and one DVD.

The DVD is "The Happiest Baby on the Block" About $12 on Amazon. This shows a swaddling and soothing technique that will calm even colicy babies. Truly a miracle if your little bundle of joy just cries without ceasing for no reason. There is a book by the same name with all the reasons and science behind the technique. But the DVD (and a good receiving blanket) are more than sufficient. This technique works great from about birth to 3 months or so when it is usually no longer needed.

The book is "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child.". Current edition is $12 on Amazon, slightly older edition is going for less than a buck. This book details the most healthy sleep amounts and times for children from about 6 months to abut 18 years of age. Most kids today are grossly sleep deprived and it isn't healthy. The book will also give you the courage needed to let a child cry and go to sleep when that is what is needed.

Now, back to less important matters:

J_dazzle23 wrote:1- I was incorrectly under the impression that a business could charge you with trespassing simply for entering with a gun without permission. That's my bad.


Learning from each other is a major benefit of the forum.

Entering a church or private residence that has "given notice" (via any of the legally recognized means) that guns are prohibited is an immediate violation of the law. Refusing to leave when asked would then become a second crime of criminal trespassing since the presence with a gun in the off limits building constitutes a crime itself.

But with a business open to the public, there is no violation for taking a gun in contrary to policy, and the business has a high hurdle to clear to claim you are trespassing simply because you have a gun contrary to their policy.

This means that the gun buster signs that are ubiquitous at Utah hospitals are nothing more than a suggestion that can be ignored. Personally, unless I'm the patient and will be unable to maintain proper control of my firearm, I refuse to spend time in a hospital unarmed. As you'll learn soon enough in the ER if not already, hospitals tend to attract some unpleasant folks: from drug addicts looking for a fix, to gang bangers visiting their injured homeys, to folks stricken with horrible grief. One of my children was born at very Women's Center where the Alta View Hostage Incident took place in 1991 resulting in a nurse being murdered and several babies having to be born without doctors present because an entire labor/delivery floor was taken hostage.

J_dazzle23 wrote:2- I failed to make it clear that ethically, I DONT think there is actually a difference in breaking that rule(or law) in a business or a church. Legally, yes- but allow me my musing ;)

I'm not equating a church to a business. Not at all. I'm just simply stating that because a church should get different treatment than a business, I don't believe property rights are in any way less important for a privately owned business.


Yours is a rational, logical, and eminently defensible position.

I simply don't share it. :shades:

And neither does the Utah Legislature, Congress, the Utah Courts, nor the federal courts up to and including the SCOTUS.

A fine case can be made that a man's business property is his to use as he likes, to set terms for others to use it, and so on. But that hasn't been true for a very long time. Going back to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and the anti-discrimination laws that came out of that, and the ADA that followed, business property is subject to all kinds of limits in terms of denying service. Prior to the Civil Rights Act major swaths of this nation had laws mandating segregated facilities. So business owners went from being required to segregate to being mandated not to discriminate. :dunno:

I've previously listed a number of other legal differences between business property and your habitation including use of force laws. The 4th amendment gets extra regard at your habitation as well with the SCOTUS ruling that even the curtilage cannot be searched without a warrant in most cases. Churches are exempt for anti-discrimination laws in both membership and employment. Some churches and their employees remain exempt from social security.

All of these constitutional and statutory differences between businesses and churches/homes are a reflection of social values. A sit in at a lunch counter is one thing. The same conduct at a house of worship would be far more offensive.

Certainly if you want to abstain from carrying into any business that doesn't like guns, I won't fault you for it.

I will simply disagree with you about any ethical equality between businesses and churches or homes.

All the best.

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby J_dazzle23 » Thu 21 Apr 2016 5:54 pm

bagpiper wrote:
J_dazzle23 wrote:No hard feelings! Internet is not serious business, and my post truly was a laughing matter to me in many ways simply because I couldn't believe y'all were actually gonna go there with me.

It seemed I read too far into your posts and for that I'm just as much to blame as you guys. No hard feelings at all.


Thanks. Best of luck to you on your boards. And good luck with the new addition to the family. I hate to bear bad news, but your sleep schedule is not going to improve any. :D

In all seriousness, I highly recommend one book and one DVD.

The DVD is "The Happiest Baby on the Block" About $12 on Amazon. This shows a swaddling and soothing technique that will calm even colicy babies. Truly a miracle if your little bundle of joy just cries without ceasing for no reason. There is a book by the same name with all the reasons and science behind the technique. But the DVD (and a good receiving blanket) are more than sufficient. This technique works great from about birth to 3 months or so when it is usually no longer needed.

The book is "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child.". Current edition is $12 on Amazon, slightly older edition is going for less than a buck. This book details the most healthy sleep amounts and times for children from about 6 months to abut 18 years of age. Most kids today are grossly sleep deprived and it isn't healthy. The book will also give you the courage needed to let a child cry and go to sleep when that is what is needed.

Now, back to less important matters:

J_dazzle23 wrote:1- I was incorrectly under the impression that a business could charge you with trespassing simply for entering with a gun without permission. That's my bad.


Learning from each other is a major benefit of the forum.

Entering a church or private residence that has "given notice" (via any of the legally recognized means) that guns are prohibited is an immediate violation of the law. Refusing to leave when asked would then become a second crime of criminal trespassing since the presence with a gun in the off limits building constitutes a crime itself.

But with a business open to the public, there is no violation for taking a gun in contrary to policy, and the business has a high hurdle to clear to claim you are trespassing simply because you have a gun contrary to their policy.

This means that the gun buster signs that are ubiquitous at Utah hospitals are nothing more than a suggestion that can be ignored. Personally, unless I'm the patient and will be unable to maintain proper control of my firearm, I refuse to spend time in a hospital unarmed. As you'll learn soon enough in the ER if not already, hospitals tend to attract some unpleasant folks: from drug addicts looking for a fix, to gang bangers visiting their injured homeys, to folks stricken with horrible grief. One of my children was born at very Women's Center where the Alta View Hostage Incident took place in 1991 resulting in a nurse being murdered and several babies having to be born without doctors present because an entire labor/delivery floor was taken hostage.

J_dazzle23 wrote:2- I failed to make it clear that ethically, I DONT think there is actually a difference in breaking that rule(or law) in a business or a church. Legally, yes- but allow me my musing ;)

I'm not equating a church to a business. Not at all. I'm just simply stating that because a church should get different treatment than a business, I don't believe property rights are in any way less important for a privately owned business.


Yours is a rational, logical, and eminently defensible position.

I simply don't share it. :shades:

And neither does the Utah Legislature, Congress, the Utah Courts, nor the federal courts up to and including the SCOTUS.

A fine case can be made that a man's business property is his to use as he likes, to set terms for others to use it, and so on. But that hasn't been true for a very long time. Going back to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and the anti-discrimination laws that came out of that, and the ADA that followed, business property is subject to all kinds of limits in terms of denying service. Prior to the Civil Rights Act major swaths of this nation had laws mandating segregated facilities. So business owners went from being required to segregate to being mandated not to discriminate. :dunno:

I've previously listed a number of other legal differences between business property and your habitation including use of force laws. The 4th amendment gets extra regard at your habitation as well with the SCOTUS ruling that even the curtilage cannot be searched without a warrant in most cases. Churches are exempt for anti-discrimination laws in both membership and employment. Some churches and their employees remain exempt from social security.

All of these constitutional and statutory differences between businesses and churches/homes are a reflection of social values. A sit in at a lunch counter is one thing. The same conduct at a house of worship would be far more offensive.

Certainly if you want to abstain from carrying into any business that doesn't like guns, I won't fault you for it.

I will simply disagree with you about any ethical equality between businesses and churches or homes.

All the best.

Charles


Thanks for the advice. I certainly don't plan on catching up on any sleep.

In my eyes, there may not be equality between churches and businesses. Quite obviously. But I do believe that a property owner should be able to control their property.

Now of course this is not black and white, but going down that discussion is a bit off topic(I'm now realizing).

It is simply a reflection(for either a business OR a church)...."does my right to defend myself outweigh the religion or property owners' right to control their property?" Especially if I belong to said religion and should theoretically have my voice heard in simple non-religious or doctrinal policies?

Or do I just....spend time on things that may be easier to change.
User avatar
J_dazzle23
Marksman
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2011 2:23 pm

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby Cinhil » Thu 21 Apr 2016 9:44 pm

bagpiper wrote:
D-FIN wrote:..... Luckily many of the men of the ward caught on to what was happening and prevented it from happening quite vehemently. However if this couple would have produced weapons and caused trouble it could have turned ugly fast.


No doubt about it, the decision of President Thomas S. Monson to continue the policy of banning guns in LDS house of worship looks foolish in many cases to many persons. In fact, you don't even have to throw out hypotheticals about interesting situations that could turn ugly if a bad guy is the only person in a church with a gun. We've had reports in the last few years of the LDS Bishop being shot in the building in Cali and a member of an LDS congregation being shot in the parking lot on her way into (or out of, I forget) church by a crazed estranged ex-husband.

I think it safe to say that nobody here likes the ban. We'd all be thrilled if President Monson, the 1st Presidency, and Quorum of the Twelve were to eliminate the policy tomorrow.

I encourage you to make your concerns known to your Stake President and to any LDS General Authorities or General Officers with whom you have a relationship that would permit you to raise such concerns with them. I will offer my assistance with any meeting you may be able to arrange with LDS Church officials on this matter.

But so long as the policy remains in place, law-abiding gun owners have no choice (if they wish to retain the adjective "law-abiding") but to abide the law, one way or another. Observant LDS have religious obligations to sustain President Monson in his duties and right to set mundane polices even if we don't agree with them. And non-LDS have an obligation to respect the wishes of what items churches desire not to have brought onto their holy ground.

Charles


Being the author of the following letter: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10996&hilit=+letter , with great input from the forum, and with information garnered from the person, who was at the time responsible for getting letters to the appropriate church department, it was after the letter was sent when I discovered that, though the Presiding Bishop of the church created the rule (my understanding, via the churches legal counsel), letters such as this go to the security department and most often are ignored. President Monson is probably aware of this rule however, I doubt he was involved in it's creation(?). Unfortunately no response was ever received, that alone is sad. Since then we have put up with this church rule, and law whether we like it or not, and mostly it is a "NOT." For now I am not certain we could get things very far but I would certainly be grateful were our first amendment rights be allowed whether or not I/we choose to carry in/at church in obedience to those words of the Declaration on the family which states so clearly we are responsible for the safety and security of our families and failure to protect or provide for them is a violation of our responsibility. Paraphrased.

As of this time as Charles has said, about your only option is to speak with your ecclesiastical leader for permission or just keep quite and never say anything on this, or any other forum as to whether you are or are not carrying while at church.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is not being abused today!

Even Knights had "Modern" weapons!

'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
User avatar
Cinhil
Sniper
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Fri 24 Jun 2005 1:31 am

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby quychang » Fri 22 Apr 2016 10:42 pm

Finally, this is reasonable discussion. I still have the issue that we are discussing a gun law and not simple trespassing or ignoring a rule set by a church that I dont' believe in.

But if we're going to discuss it in this forum, this is the tone and format in which it should take place. Thank you guys.

Mel
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby bumpylight » Sat 23 Apr 2016 9:13 am

I don't have a dog baby doggy in this hunt, but for what it's worth, I recall offhand an interesting approach for five- or six-month-old (not newborn) infants that appeared a year or two ago on an episode of "Shark Tank":

http://heavy.com/entertainment/2014/09/ ... -products/

The premise seems convincing to me, but then, I'm not a harassed parent wondering if a full night's sleep is a legend invented by sadistic pranksters. :ROFL:

bagpiper wrote:The DVD is "The Happiest Baby on the Block" About $12 on Amazon. This shows a swaddling and soothing technique that will calm even colicy babies. Truly a miracle if your little bundle of joy just cries without ceasing for no reason. [....]


P.S. My imaginary dog puppydog isn't sniffing around the premises of an LDS meetinghouse either, but I'd have to echo the sentiment that it's entirely up to the church elders to decide whether or not firearms are appropriate on the grounds of their sacred places. I'd also agree that if you absolutely must carry anyway, then keep your lip zipped tighter than a stockbroker's insider-tipsters contact book. Secretly carrying might be respectful to yourself and your family and perhaps marginally disrespectful to the church elders, but being loud-mouthed about it is simply rude and deeply unwise.

In any case, I'll now depart the thread with those Captain Obvious words still hanging in the air. :spit:
User avatar
bumpylight
Marksman
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue 26 Feb 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby James » Tue 19 Jul 2016 10:05 am

If you feel the need to pack a gun to church, conceal deeply and keep your mouth shut about it! Ya, I know that is illegal, but so is driving 60 in a 55,
and rolling through stop signs. Point is people break the law daily. The attitude is: "If you can get away with it, its OK."

If you can't feel safe at church without your gun, then don't go to church. (and be sure to tell your Bishop why you don't go.)

We each have to decide for ourselves if we will live by the rules or not....... and I certainly would not say in a public forum that I broke the law by taking a gun to church!

Quote: "I wasn't carrying nor did I have a weapon in my car but I lived close by. I zipped home, threw on a jacket, armed myself, threw in a couple extra mags, and went back to church. "
Carry on!
User avatar
James
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu 13 Dec 2007 9:51 pm
Location: Cache Valley

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby AlanM » Tue 19 Jul 2016 10:58 pm

Seeking forgiveness for having a deeply concealed firearm on your person when needed is a LOT easier to deal with than having to go to multiple funerals of friends and loved ones.
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
User avatar
AlanM
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat 02 Jun 2012 10:07 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby DaKnife » Wed 20 Jul 2016 5:30 am

AlanM wrote:Seeking forgiveness for having a deeply concealed firearm on your person when needed is a LOT easier to deal with than having to go to multiple funerals of friends and loved ones.

Fine, nobody is arguing that point. But stop telling people you are breaking the law. We love to point out how those with concealed carry permits are the most law abiding grouping of citizens you can find. But then you brag about breaking the law.

If you carry at church, do it deep and stop talking about it. We respect your decision to not trust any GFZ, but we do try to respect the laws.

Or as Charles constantly points out, would you rather the church change it's position on carry entirely as they can cite numerous examples of supposedly law abiding citizens bragging about ignoring the law against carrying into LDS chapels. If the 800 lb Gorilla decides it no longer likes concealed carry, how long do you think Utah's great laws will stay so great?

If you carry when attending LDS services, unless you are a LEO or have specific permission to do so, do it deep and stop talking about doing it.
SPOOOOOOON!!!

WARNING: This comment may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, in every other state it may increase intelligence and knowledge.
User avatar
DaKnife
Sniper
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:16 pm
Location: Riverdale

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby AlanM » Wed 20 Jul 2016 4:48 pm

I never said anything about bragging about carrying deeply concealed.
Actually, I was trying to imply by saying DEEPLY CONCEALED that your armed/unarmed status is not to be known except in a dire emergency.

The concealed carrier's equivalent of Schrodinger's cat.
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
User avatar
AlanM
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat 02 Jun 2012 10:07 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby quychang » Fri 22 Jul 2016 6:19 pm

OMG, this is the "Thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend, some people started typing it not knowing what was, now they'll continue typing it forever just because..."

Mel
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT

Re: Potential threat during an LDS church meeting

Postby JoeSparky » Fri 22 Jul 2016 7:34 pm

quychang wrote:OMG, this is the "Thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend, some people started typing it not knowing what was, now they'll continue typing it forever just because..."

Mel

Not me! :shades:
JoeSparky
GOA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NAGR Member
UCC
OCDO

Remember IANAL
Praying that OUR Country can be returned to it's greatness and to it's CONSTITUTION!
JoeSparky
Sniper
 
Posts: 2898
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008 2:34 am
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah

Previous

Return to Real Life Stories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest