Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Soapbox

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
Old 01-29-2013, 10:14   #1
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,647
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

29 Jan 2013
Page 1 of 3

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle - it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” - it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2013, 10:15   #2
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,647
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 2 of 3

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: "…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States' retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2013, 10:16   #3
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,647
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 3 of 3


So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “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”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful "Eddie the Eagle" program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be "sold" as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.
  Reply With Quote

1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter
Old 01-29-2013, 10:20   #4
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,647
1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking "Green Beret".

The letter stands for itself.

Read it and send it everywhere.

Team Sergeant
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where are they."
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2013, 11:51   #5
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Richard is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 14,631
PDF of the letter for dissemination.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Protecting the Second Amendment.pdf (146.6 KB, 892 views)
__________________
I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.
  Reply With Quote

1000 Green Berets in Support of the Second Amendment
Old 01-29-2013, 12:31   #6
Divemaster
Quiet Professional
 
Divemaster's Avatar
 
Divemaster is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington
Posts: 912
1000 Green Berets in Support of the Second Amendment

Amen and great work gentlemen!
__________________
Grando autem in duodecimo hominis
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2014, 06:09   #7
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 2,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant View Post
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 3 of 3
...
Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
Stilletto, thanks for posting.
__________________
The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2014, 07:42   #8
Stiletto11
Guerrilla
 
Stiletto11's Avatar
 
Stiletto11 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 340
It appears they are stuck in the OODA Loop, confused as how to proceed.
__________________
It is those who believe that written constitutions can protect the individual from the exercise of state power who
hold to a baseless idealism, particularly when it is the state’s judicial powers of interpretation that define the range of such authority.

J. Albert Nock

Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2014, 07:56   #9
BryanK
Guerrilla Chief
 
BryanK's Avatar
 
BryanK is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: VA
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiletto11 View Post
...While Mr. Cinque has been thrown into a whirlwind of news publicity in the past week, he is confident that cooler heads will prevail and wants to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. That solution is to have constitutionally educated law enforcement officers, who also understand the history of gun registration / confiscation, and a citizenry who elect lawmakers who understand the same.
I have been racking my brain to come up with a viable solution to this issue (2A encroachment), and other issues plaguing our way of life as Americans. That is why I am a member of this forum, because I am interested in the SF way of life, and from what I understand, problem solving is a big part of that way of life. As I see it, we have some enormous problems that need solving.

In regard to the highlighted portion of the article, I am having a difficult time understanding the phrase “cooler heads will prevail". From my view of outside looking in, voting and educating haven't done squat but allow the powers that be to further diminish our Constitutional rights by way of the death by a thousand cuts method to satisfy greed. So how do we, as a Nation, either regain our rights, or cease the actions being taken to whittle down those rights? Judging from the last two Presidential elections and other elections across the board, the vast majority of people in America don't give two pennies about what happens to the Nation as a whole, so long as it doesn't interfere with their TV reception. So how will you convince millions of sheeple to wake the hell up? I don't have the answers, and that is why I pose these questions. It just seems apparent that being the cooler head gets you pissed on to warm it back up.

Americans have short attention spans. You can give the best speech or show the best TV ads and two minutes later, after that trip to Wendy's, all is forgotten. I saw this country band together for the most part right after 9/11, and it stayed that way for a few years. Is that what it will take? Will it take another outside attack that destroys American lives and families for people to realize just how precious our liberty is? I certainly and sincerely hope that does not happen again, so what can we do? There are enough great minds on this board to come up with alternative solutions that we can maybe forward to elected officials and get real results instead of empty promises.

The letter in the original post of this thread is a great start, but outside of a few websites, I haven’t seen it mentioned by anyone it was directed to anywhere else. So now what? How can we get our elected officials to really listen? The dissent shown in Connecticut is also a great start, but those individuals who defied their leaders are now felons. Will America get up in arms when they start kicking in doors and dragging these newly minted criminals out to the patty wagon? I doubt it.

A compilation of ideas has led me to a solution, albeit it may get me arrested for thoughtcrime. Here goes the "what if...?". What if, we had a person or a handful of intelligent, charismatic, and articulate people who hold a "Million man march" rally of sorts in DC while Congress is in session? While having personnel in the crowd to self-police, we move the crowd to the U.S. Capitol. We then physically open the doors, and with a list of those seated who are blatantly opposed to the Constitution, start systematically offering the ultimatum of either "get out, or we'll throw you out".

With sufficient numbers, I believe this could be a solution without a shot being fired. We would keep those who have the core beliefs this Nation was built on to aid in the reconstruction of Congress, and hold emergency elections in each district not represented any longer to repopulate the empty seats. The voting tickets would have no party affiliations listed, just a limited number of candidates who have 48 hours to state their case via televised town hall style forums.

This would be an "action" that Americans would pay attention to, while simultaneously reverting back to the way business should be conducted according to the provisions outlined in the Constitution. It sounds crazy, but I'm just spitballing here to see what others think.
__________________
"1000 days of evasion are better than one day in captivity"

"Paying for tattoos, sex and guns are three examples where a man should never look for the cheapest version. You might get away with it, but the consequences are not worth the savings."- cat in the hat

Last edited by BryanK; 03-28-2014 at 17:44.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2014, 08:18   #10
casey
Quiet Professional
 
casey's Avatar
 
casey is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: east coast
Posts: 570
Do not - for a second - think that the vast majority of LEO's subscribe to this Barney Fife's sheeple mentality. At least in the very large group I associate with, the day that we turn our backs on the Constitution and begin putting yellow Juden stars on gun owners is the day we have lost everything.

I sometimes feel as if we are watching our own decline into nation of cowards - or I guess I'm just shocked at the lack of outrage. Laws are changed on whims and checkpoints are set up for DNA sampling?? And now you want to take away Joe Citizens right to defend themselves?

I will choose to follow established and historical precedents - unregistered weapons are NOT illegal - they are simply undocumented.............

"So at this point, what difference does it make".........
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2014, 08:34   #11
Stiletto11
Guerrilla
 
Stiletto11's Avatar
 
Stiletto11 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 340
The propaganda campaign rolls on and gun owners and guns in general are being characterized as evil and the sheep eat this stuff like its candy. Connecticut politicians thought that everyone would just obey and that was a miscalculation based on arrogance and a thirst for power. There are plenty of keyboard warriors who talk tough until it is time to go to the fight. I saws them in line registering mags and rifles. Time will tell but I hope that all freedom loving individuals gun owners or not will band together for a common cause....Freedom. We live in precarious times.
__________________
It is those who believe that written constitutions can protect the individual from the exercise of state power who
hold to a baseless idealism, particularly when it is the state’s judicial powers of interpretation that define the range of such authority.

J. Albert Nock

Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2014, 12:23   #12
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by casey View Post
Do not - for a second - think that the vast majority of LEO's subscribe to this Barney Fife's sheeple mentality. At least in the very large group I associate with, the day that we turn our backs on the Constitution and begin putting yellow Juden stars on gun owners is the day we have lost everything.

I sometimes feel as if we are watching our own decline into nation of cowards - or I guess I'm just shocked at the lack of outrage. Laws are changed on whims and checkpoints are set up for DNA sampling?? And now you want to take away Joe Citizens right to defend themselves?

I will choose to follow established and historical precedents - unregistered weapons are NOT illegal - they are simply undocumented.............

"So at this point, what difference does it make".........
I think that when the confiscations begin you'll see outrage not seen in this country since the civil war.....

Politicians are not above the law as they seem to think.
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where are they."
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2013, 21:16   #13
SF_BHT
Quiet Professional
 
SF_BHT's Avatar
 
SF_BHT is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South of the Border
Posts: 5,128
Great job.....
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2013, 21:36   #14
bberkley
Guerrilla
 
bberkley's Avatar
 
bberkley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 158
I haven't been around this board for some time, but I do want to commend you gentlemen on this letter.

It is one of the more concise and cogent arguments presented, and I appreciate it very much.
__________________
13R2P Ft. Bragg, NC 1984-1988
  Reply With Quote

Second Amendment
Old 01-30-2013, 08:03   #15
HALOMAN007
Asset
 
HALOMAN007 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Maidens, VA
Posts: 1
Second Amendment

How do I sign?

You need to go to the below link and follow the instructions before posting again - especially item #3.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ead.php?t=3452

Welcome to PS.Com.

Richard
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05.



Green Beret Foundation

Copyright 2004-2013 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies