Skyrad 0 #1 October 21, 2004 So today the UK's Home office anounced that violent crime is up 11% and that over the last two years gun crime in Britan has risen by 5%. Seeing as gun control over legal firarms seems to have no affect on gun crime is it time the people of the UK were allowed to arm themselves? Whats your take? Personaly I'd like to see a change in the law relaxing firearms controls. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3761626.stmWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 October 21, 2004 eh, it's your country. However, is a 5% rise just a blip, or a true trend? We cycle up and down dramatically in the US based on the economy and the size of the young male cohort in the population distribution. I settle for corrupting Canadians by taking them to the range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #3 October 21, 2004 Nope, those Britash are just idyats and giving them gunnns would be foulish. A return to pre Dunblane gun ownership would do nothing to reduce these figures, without the right to carry we would wasting our time. Pre Dunblane ban control would still require firearms to be stored separate from the ammo, in secure gun safes. Not exactly practical for self defence purposes. In order to be effective it would have to be all or nothing, and I really can't see any party voicing the opinion that we require guns because they (the govt) cannot protect us from criminals. Edit to add...personally I don't need 'em, I live in a wee village, nothing happens, not even vandalism.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #4 October 21, 2004 Yes. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Advantage - outlaws. Y'all might also want to have an ammendment protecting homeowners/tenants who own firearms and shoot intruders too. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #5 October 21, 2004 Let’s put it in perspective. We should compare this 5% rise to the 35% rise in 2001 – 2002. Doesn’t seem at all bad now does it? We should take that in perspective with the reported drop in gun crime in the years previous to that. You should note that “gun crime” includes the 1,815 instances of the use of imitation weapons in crime (a jump of 46% year on year). How about the fact that 70% of armed police call outs are to deal with imitation guns, as touched on in the article… perhaps robbers can’t find real guns to use?? The biggest thing of note is that the industry itself, together with the government does not rely solely on these figures. They are not fully reliable as they only include reported crime while there is a large amount of crime that goes unreported. There are also changes year on year in what crimes count as “reported” crimes and how they are recorded. This can induce a MAJOR skew in the Home Office figures where present. The British Crime Survey is the method by which these discrepancies are taken into account. The figures for that are also going to be published later today and show a fall of 7% in crimes involving the use of a handgun. So which do we believe? The Home Office figures, or the British Crime Survey? Well those who work in the Criminal Justice System use both and temper one against the other… but overall the British Crime Survey, whilst involving the extrapolation of data from a survey, does not contain any major skews as the Home Office figures do. It’s nice to see recent steps like a mandatory 5-year sentence for people convicted of a crime involving a firearm. I wonder why this can’t be life though… there really can be no excuse for carrying a firearm where it is illegal to do so. I wonder what next years figures will bring in the light of this change and others. One thing that all the pundits and papers are clear on however, is that our current problems with guns draw far more links to gangster cultures and how “cool” it is to be seen carrying a pistol than any other single influence. It’s clear that pistols have become the “must have” fashion accessory of today’s youth. That’s something of a change to trends we have seen in other countries or in the past as there is no real reason that these people are carrying weapons other than the fact that they think it makes them look cool. That’s sad. edited to add this link of another news report currently out: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1332552,00.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #6 October 21, 2004 QuotePersonaly I'd like to see a change in the law relaxing firearms controls. of course you would But lets be realistic, all this fuss at the moment over making hunting with DOGS illegal, do you really see the posibility of relaxing on fire arms. I met a bloke that ownerd a rodd and gunn store and if ia am correct, he was telling me that it is illegal for anyone to actually have a pistol in thins country. So If this is the case, i can not see something them relaxing that law as this is good for your country. Maybe you should think about moving to America. Do you not feel safe in england? The only trouble i have ever though would be a concern to average people here is the Junkies lying all over the streets and the Footaball fans of Louts out in the evenings. These people are not really known to be carrying guns though are they? I could be wrong about this butit is just what i have noticed since travelling this country. I have lived in nearly every main part of the UK and have never felt the need to be carrying a weapon. Your country feels like a safe place but you would not go wrong giving your children boxing lessons. Your country though but with a country that has or is making hunting with dogs illegal that is a big tradition here i can not see anyone relaxing on your gun laws. Maybe you could relax on other laws, i mean we are in the capital of europe here and the pubs close at 10-11pm!, now that is where you have a problem. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #7 October 21, 2004 QuoteMaybe you could relax on other laws, i mean we are in the capital of europe here and the pubs close at 10-11pm!, now that is where you have a problem. Actually that’s going to be happening in the next Parliament. It's also heavily linked to many of our violent crime problems as I'm sure Skyrad can testify - it's all the drunken louts who are kicked out of the clubs that end up beating each other up... drinking habits change when there's no closing time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #8 October 21, 2004 yeah, in my country they close3am-5am. you do not go the pub till about 9pm and the band dont start till 10pm-11pm. but this way people leave through the night cause they are too pised or tired and go home, they are not drinking as much as possible before closing time and then are chucked out in the middle of town at 11pm and no where to go but cause trouble. You think about it, finish work at 5-6pm, go home have dinner, shower, get dressed. there is 8pm-8:30 go to the pub, get there by around 9pm and then you got 2 hours of drinking time before you got to go home or pay 5-20 quid to get into a club to drink stupidly priced watered down drinks. This wrong, i am in the capital of europe and am usually home by midnight starting my hangover. I was running a pub in a small town called standlake in oxfordshire. At 10:45pm the local copper would come in have a beer, we would lock the doors and close the curtains and usually kick my locals out around 1am, sometimes 8am, we had good nights there, Shame my partner and i only got 500 quid between us and food accomodation to work 80+ hours each but it was our choice and a great pub. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #9 October 21, 2004 QuoteYes. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Advantage - outlaws. Y'all might also want to have an ammendment protecting homeowners/tenants who own firearms and shoot intruders too. So why don't you guys ever apply the same logic to the ownership of nuclear WMD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Stilldointime 0 #10 October 21, 2004 Let me say that I watched a UK version of cops the other night and it took the Bobbies 20 minutes to arrive to a silent alarm activated at a jewel shop. The owner also remotely locked the doors to keep the robber in the store. During the 20 minutes of "response", this robber beat the hell out of the 4 workers and was threating to kill an old lady with a iron rod until they let him out. If the shop owner had a firearm, perhaps the Bobbies could have just sent a meat wagon (hell it would have gotten there fast then they did)! What do you think would have happened to the Chief of Police if it took his officers 20 mins to respond to a silent alarm...robbery in progess in the US........not something very nice!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gordy 0 #11 October 21, 2004 Just an observation.... If he is prepared to rob the shop, and beat the employees for what ever reason, I don't think he would be that bothered about shooting them, seeing as he would probably get 3-5 years for just the robbery (armed). It may be off the wall but I would like it to remain semi-difficult for these idiots to get access to guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites markd_nscr986 0 #12 October 21, 2004 No,absolutely not! It would be the end of civilized British culture as we know it! And I shudder to think what would happen if Skyrad and Nacmacfeegle began toting CAR15'sMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #13 October 21, 2004 Wouldn't it be more efficient to just arm the Scots and send them down to take care of the problem? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #14 October 21, 2004 Jamille's link and question are a bit tricky, if we were to redress the balance and catch up with the crooks, we'd need lots and lots of fake/replica/toy guns. "And I shudder to think what would happen if Skyrad and Nacmacfeegle began toting CAR15's" Its not a comforting image, is it? But I'm more of a Glock kinda guy, I don't really need the range and firepower of a CAR15, something a little more discrete would be to my taste.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #15 October 21, 2004 QuoteYes. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Advantage - outlaws. Y'all might also want to have an ammendment protecting homeowners/tenants who own firearms and shoot intruders too. Introduce gun control over there and they will eventually have all the same problems with zero tolerance, accidental shootings by children finding guns, thieves filling a lawsuit for getting shot in the back, etc.... I liked it when I was over there knowing that if anyone was to try to rob me, it would most likely be at knife point instead of gun point._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites markd_nscr986 0 #16 October 21, 2004 ***Wouldn't it be more efficient to just arm the Scots and send them down to take care of the problem? Or perhaps the Welsh? The Scots would just take everyone's sheep away at gunpoint for their own personal"gratification"Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #17 October 21, 2004 ***t's all the drunken louts who are kicked out of the clubs that end up beating each other up..*** Ah.....i see you've been to a London Skydivers evening out!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #18 October 21, 2004 "Wouldn't it be more efficient to just arm the Scots and send them down to take care of the problem?" We tried that in 1745, and they gubbed us. Actually we probably gubbed ourselves, poor quality sheep, our guys were pining for the real thing. Besides, we have civilised licensing laws, eg my local is lawfully open till 1am, and later on a regular basis.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #19 October 21, 2004 God, I love it north of the border!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #20 October 21, 2004 "JACTA ALEA EST!" The river Tweed could be your Rubicon. Beware though, late licensing does not in itself make a great country .-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #21 October 21, 2004 This one make shock you, but I voted 'allow for home defense.' At this point, it would be a huge jump to allow subjects a working gun in the home in case of that lovely new crime: "home invasion." Staring down the double barrels of a twelve gauge would encourage a career change mighty quick. Returning the right to the best means of self defense would be a huge step. See. I told you I've never been a "go for broke" supporter on any issue.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #22 October 21, 2004 I should think it obvious. Since it's not.... 1) Nation-states are not individuals. 2) The U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to other nations. 3) The transitive property of logic does not apply between nation-states and individuals. Among many other reasons. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #23 October 21, 2004 QuoteJust an observation.... If he is prepared to rob the shop, and beat the employees for what ever reason, I don't think he would be that bothered about shooting them, seeing as he would probably get 3-5 years for just the robbery (armed). It may be off the wall but I would like it to remain semi-difficult for these idiots to get access to guns. I've always wondered how people can make the jump from "they're willing to rob you" all the way to "so they wouldn't mind shooting you." 3 to 5 for some form of theft is a bit different from 25 to Life for homicide. Quite simply most people run when confronted with a gun, and that is as it should be. No one is going to go into a robbery thinking "he may have a gun, so I'll shoot him first just in case." Anyone who thinks a criminal might actually think that needs their head examined.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigway 4 #24 October 21, 2004 Quote3 to 5 for some form of theft is a bit different from 25 to Life for homicide. so you presume you would get caught? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #25 October 21, 2004 As I've posted before; we continue to enjoy that right. But as you may expect, that right is tempered by the restriction that we may only exercise it in the most sever of circumstances. We may only take a life where our own or that of another is imminently threatened by genuine credible threat. Where justified in taking such action, we may use whatever means is available to us. That includes the use of a shotgun, which are still legally held in this country (as of right no less – not even as a privilege). I have shotguns. Were my life threatened I would be legally justified in killing with one. I am happy with these restrictions. The use of lethal force is ultimate – it is far from a trivial matter and should only be available under the absolute extremes of circumstances. The law reflects this. You just voted for the laws we currently have in this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mr2mk1g 10 #7 October 21, 2004 QuoteMaybe you could relax on other laws, i mean we are in the capital of europe here and the pubs close at 10-11pm!, now that is where you have a problem. Actually that’s going to be happening in the next Parliament. It's also heavily linked to many of our violent crime problems as I'm sure Skyrad can testify - it's all the drunken louts who are kicked out of the clubs that end up beating each other up... drinking habits change when there's no closing time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #8 October 21, 2004 yeah, in my country they close3am-5am. you do not go the pub till about 9pm and the band dont start till 10pm-11pm. but this way people leave through the night cause they are too pised or tired and go home, they are not drinking as much as possible before closing time and then are chucked out in the middle of town at 11pm and no where to go but cause trouble. You think about it, finish work at 5-6pm, go home have dinner, shower, get dressed. there is 8pm-8:30 go to the pub, get there by around 9pm and then you got 2 hours of drinking time before you got to go home or pay 5-20 quid to get into a club to drink stupidly priced watered down drinks. This wrong, i am in the capital of europe and am usually home by midnight starting my hangover. I was running a pub in a small town called standlake in oxfordshire. At 10:45pm the local copper would come in have a beer, we would lock the doors and close the curtains and usually kick my locals out around 1am, sometimes 8am, we had good nights there, Shame my partner and i only got 500 quid between us and food accomodation to work 80+ hours each but it was our choice and a great pub. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #9 October 21, 2004 QuoteYes. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Advantage - outlaws. Y'all might also want to have an ammendment protecting homeowners/tenants who own firearms and shoot intruders too. So why don't you guys ever apply the same logic to the ownership of nuclear WMD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stilldointime 0 #10 October 21, 2004 Let me say that I watched a UK version of cops the other night and it took the Bobbies 20 minutes to arrive to a silent alarm activated at a jewel shop. The owner also remotely locked the doors to keep the robber in the store. During the 20 minutes of "response", this robber beat the hell out of the 4 workers and was threating to kill an old lady with a iron rod until they let him out. If the shop owner had a firearm, perhaps the Bobbies could have just sent a meat wagon (hell it would have gotten there fast then they did)! What do you think would have happened to the Chief of Police if it took his officers 20 mins to respond to a silent alarm...robbery in progess in the US........not something very nice!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gordy 0 #11 October 21, 2004 Just an observation.... If he is prepared to rob the shop, and beat the employees for what ever reason, I don't think he would be that bothered about shooting them, seeing as he would probably get 3-5 years for just the robbery (armed). It may be off the wall but I would like it to remain semi-difficult for these idiots to get access to guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #12 October 21, 2004 No,absolutely not! It would be the end of civilized British culture as we know it! And I shudder to think what would happen if Skyrad and Nacmacfeegle began toting CAR15'sMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #13 October 21, 2004 Wouldn't it be more efficient to just arm the Scots and send them down to take care of the problem? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #14 October 21, 2004 Jamille's link and question are a bit tricky, if we were to redress the balance and catch up with the crooks, we'd need lots and lots of fake/replica/toy guns. "And I shudder to think what would happen if Skyrad and Nacmacfeegle began toting CAR15's" Its not a comforting image, is it? But I'm more of a Glock kinda guy, I don't really need the range and firepower of a CAR15, something a little more discrete would be to my taste.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #15 October 21, 2004 QuoteYes. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Advantage - outlaws. Y'all might also want to have an ammendment protecting homeowners/tenants who own firearms and shoot intruders too. Introduce gun control over there and they will eventually have all the same problems with zero tolerance, accidental shootings by children finding guns, thieves filling a lawsuit for getting shot in the back, etc.... I liked it when I was over there knowing that if anyone was to try to rob me, it would most likely be at knife point instead of gun point._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #16 October 21, 2004 ***Wouldn't it be more efficient to just arm the Scots and send them down to take care of the problem? Or perhaps the Welsh? The Scots would just take everyone's sheep away at gunpoint for their own personal"gratification"Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #17 October 21, 2004 ***t's all the drunken louts who are kicked out of the clubs that end up beating each other up..*** Ah.....i see you've been to a London Skydivers evening out!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #18 October 21, 2004 "Wouldn't it be more efficient to just arm the Scots and send them down to take care of the problem?" We tried that in 1745, and they gubbed us. Actually we probably gubbed ourselves, poor quality sheep, our guys were pining for the real thing. Besides, we have civilised licensing laws, eg my local is lawfully open till 1am, and later on a regular basis.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #19 October 21, 2004 God, I love it north of the border!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #20 October 21, 2004 "JACTA ALEA EST!" The river Tweed could be your Rubicon. Beware though, late licensing does not in itself make a great country .-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #21 October 21, 2004 This one make shock you, but I voted 'allow for home defense.' At this point, it would be a huge jump to allow subjects a working gun in the home in case of that lovely new crime: "home invasion." Staring down the double barrels of a twelve gauge would encourage a career change mighty quick. Returning the right to the best means of self defense would be a huge step. See. I told you I've never been a "go for broke" supporter on any issue.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #22 October 21, 2004 I should think it obvious. Since it's not.... 1) Nation-states are not individuals. 2) The U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to other nations. 3) The transitive property of logic does not apply between nation-states and individuals. Among many other reasons. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #23 October 21, 2004 QuoteJust an observation.... If he is prepared to rob the shop, and beat the employees for what ever reason, I don't think he would be that bothered about shooting them, seeing as he would probably get 3-5 years for just the robbery (armed). It may be off the wall but I would like it to remain semi-difficult for these idiots to get access to guns. I've always wondered how people can make the jump from "they're willing to rob you" all the way to "so they wouldn't mind shooting you." 3 to 5 for some form of theft is a bit different from 25 to Life for homicide. Quite simply most people run when confronted with a gun, and that is as it should be. No one is going to go into a robbery thinking "he may have a gun, so I'll shoot him first just in case." Anyone who thinks a criminal might actually think that needs their head examined.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #24 October 21, 2004 Quote3 to 5 for some form of theft is a bit different from 25 to Life for homicide. so you presume you would get caught? .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #25 October 21, 2004 As I've posted before; we continue to enjoy that right. But as you may expect, that right is tempered by the restriction that we may only exercise it in the most sever of circumstances. We may only take a life where our own or that of another is imminently threatened by genuine credible threat. Where justified in taking such action, we may use whatever means is available to us. That includes the use of a shotgun, which are still legally held in this country (as of right no less – not even as a privilege). I have shotguns. Were my life threatened I would be legally justified in killing with one. I am happy with these restrictions. The use of lethal force is ultimate – it is far from a trivial matter and should only be available under the absolute extremes of circumstances. The law reflects this. You just voted for the laws we currently have in this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mr2mk1g 10 #25 October 21, 2004 As I've posted before; we continue to enjoy that right. But as you may expect, that right is tempered by the restriction that we may only exercise it in the most sever of circumstances. We may only take a life where our own or that of another is imminently threatened by genuine credible threat. Where justified in taking such action, we may use whatever means is available to us. That includes the use of a shotgun, which are still legally held in this country (as of right no less – not even as a privilege). I have shotguns. Were my life threatened I would be legally justified in killing with one. I am happy with these restrictions. The use of lethal force is ultimate – it is far from a trivial matter and should only be available under the absolute extremes of circumstances. The law reflects this. You just voted for the laws we currently have in this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites