SWAT, equip. care and feeding

GLV,

I'll defer to someone else, I've got a Websters and a colliers on record.. but maybe someone in my house has been messing with my dictionaries. We'll see if anyone else has a handy definition.

I think you are forgetting that Cops are Citizens too, GLV. They have to live with the same laws that they enforce. With the possible exception of BS traffic laws, which they regularly choose not to enforce anyway. If you doubt it, get out on any interstate and see how many cars are actually getting tickets for driving over the speed limit. (no, they aren't all cops...)

We've had this discussion over and over again. Some people resent that the risks associated with police work come with a few benefits, that has always been the case. Now, a new breed of critics think that because they are capable of taking care of themselves, LEOs shouldn't be armed and trained well enough to take care of other, less capable citizens. Like I said above, as long as the gov't gives out badges and the majority of the people wants cops on the street, then cops should have the gear and training to deal with anything they might face. Including bombs, body armor, multiple threats, etc, etc, etc, etc.


Cmore: it was 41 shots and 19 hits, if we are all talking about the same "NY incident".. drastically different from your numbers.

I agree with you that LEOs need more training before they need more bullets, but I think they need both. ONE reason, IMHO, that fire/EMT personnel get more training is that they have more down time. On an LEOs "down time" he is still expected to be out in his patrol car, to deter crime and comfort the citizens. Also, When he's not arresting a suspect, or answering a call, most patrolmen are expected to be working "traffic duty."

When a house ain't burning or nowbody's dying, the Fire and EMT guys aren't expected to spend countless hours doing little more than making sure that the tires keep moving on their vehicles. If an LEO is in training, that means another LEO has to be doing his job, a job which goes on 24 hours, 7 days a week. Keeping enough officers on the road is hard enough without factoring in training, let alone with it.

------------------
-Essayons
 
The sad thing about this thread is that we are having this discussion at all. The members of this forum and LEOs should be natural allies.

I'd like to ask how many people felt the way they do now, say 10 years ago? It seems that Josh Sugarman and the rest of that ilk are succeeding in their goal of driving a wedge between gunowners and law enforcement.

I've been a reserve LEO for the past 14 years and hope to make it my second career when I retire from the Army. I first thought about these issues in about 88 when the Bush campaign released a survey that said a large percentage on the American people thought that 4th amendment protections should be modified in drug cases. I was horrified at that time that the sheeple could be so stupid. We've been on this slipery slope to a police state since.

I think the biggest thing we have to fear is the federalization of so many crimes. Local agencies and prosecutors will be much more responsive then federal ones.

It seems to me that we'll be ok as long as we keep local control. Probably every TFL member knows places where laws that offend the community sensibilities are routinely ignored by the local authorities. We won't necessarily have this if we federalize every crime and put someone in Washington in charge of enforcing it.

Police officers walk a narrow line sometimes in doing what's safe and what might not pass muster for being exactly right.

For example (and I know this will probably piss some of you off), about three weeks ago, I handled an ongoing domestic situation in one of our trailer parks. I managed to quiet things down and solve the problem for the time being with having to arrest anyone. I did notice a nice display case full of guns in the mobile home (how some of these people afford this and large stereos and big screen TVs always amazes me, but that's another story) The party who lives in the mobile home has a drinking problem and tends to get combative. So when I got to the station to enter disposition into the computer I thought a few minutes weather to mention that there were several firearms in the house. I'm totally against any form of gun registration, bu then again another officer may need that information to save his life or that of others. In the end, I put it in the disposition so that oher officers responding to the same mobile home will know.

Policemen have to make decisions like that every day. We also make decisions the other way. I've stopped plenty of out of state pickup trucks and had them case their rifles and shotguns (here in Illinois you can't just put them in a gunrack and any weapons violation involving a firearm is a felony) before an overzealous officer caused them problems.

As I said before, if you guys have a problem with how SWAT is being used, talk to your councilman/county board member etc.

There are overzealous officers just like peole in any other profession. And unfortunately sometimes administrators feel that they have to "use" their expensive SWAT teams to justify the cost.

But back to my original question, how many felt this way 10 years ago?
Jeff
 
According to my Funk & Wagnalls:

civilian: Observing the social proprieties; decently polite; not rude.

I suppose we if were all "civilians" we wouldn't even need cops would we? From the looks of this thread I am very thankful I live in a part of the country where, for the most part, people are civil. I can count on one hand the number of times a SWAT team has been deployed around here in the last 10 years.

Many of the "SWAT Team" members in my area are my friends, neighbors, and shooting buddies. I hunt and fish with them and their kids are in my classes (I am a teacher and Chief of the local Fire/EMS).

If some wacked out puke came into my school, I would want the SWAT guys to have all the training, and equipment they need. Vests, MP5/PDW's, hell, give the sniper a .50 caliber BMG if wants one.
 
Ill help out a little with the definition discussion going on. English is one of the most dynamic languages on Earth. Like many other words, the word "civilian" has changed over the years. About 40 years ago Webster's (7th New Collegiate Dict.) defined it as:

civilian - one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force.

Today Webster's (Dictionary of the English Language) defines it as:

civilian - 1. not belonging to the armed forces; 2. a person not a member of the armed forces.

I think the most important aspect is the context the word is used in. When a police officer speaks of a civilian, I think it is quite clear who they mean, no matter which dictionary s/he might have at home.

Ankeny, I believe you looked up the word "civil" not civilian. If your Funk 'n Wagnalls has the noun civilian defined as you said, I'd have to disagree with them. (Funk 'n Wagnalls - reminds me of those skits in Laugh In. :) )
 
Since we’re having “Dictionary 101” class, my book report from Webster’s Ninth
New Collegiate Dictionary defines civilian as:
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force.
b: outsider
------------
So, I’m and EMT but I’m a civilian because I’m NOT a firefighter! (Bet Webster
doesn’t know that not every firefighter is an EMT and not every EMT is a
firefighter.)
------------
Nobody can dispute that a police officer at his best will “protect and serve”. But,
as Dr. Maslow noted, “When your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to
look like a nail.”

In some cases, SWAT-style tactics are becoming SWATs own worst enemy. Although
SWAT has been used brilliantly to great advantage, it also has been abused.
- It has been used for purposes more political and financial than strategic or
tactical.
- It has been used to provide a “margin of safety” for police officers at the expense
of common sense.
- Worst of all, the use of SWAT-style training and tactics is responsible for the
needless cost of civilian property, injuries and lives.

(Insert twenty or so perceived abuses of police power here. Please don’t make me
actually list them.)

Until law enforcement begins to police its own ranks in a fair manner, they will
continue to lose the confidence of the people they serve. Currently, if the political
scene favors the cop, he can do no wrong no matter what harm he does. If the
political scene is against the cop, he was wrong no matter what restraint he tried to
exercise. Such caprice and perfidy breed distrust of the police by the people and
and distrust by the police for their superiors.

Until LEOs tear down the “blue wall of silence” and purge their ranks of the few
who destroy the reputations of the many, civilians will continue to lose respect for
LEOs.

And that’s a damned shame.

By the way, fire/EMS personnel must have it especially hard in Texas. They have
physical training; continuing education; certification training and testing; lectures at
schools and businesses; vehicles to repair, clean, and re-stock; buildings to clean,
stock, paint, and repair; supplies to order, buy, pick-up and store; fire inspections
to make; fire hydrants to check and repair; budgets to prepare, present, and justify;
gear to rehab; lost children and adults to search for; mutual aid functions and
procedures to establish, implement, evaluate, and update; and, oh yeah, sometimes
something catches fire or someone is dying.

I guess if you’ve never served with a fire department or EMS it’s kinda hard to
realize that they also do something other than eat doughnuts.
 
Jeff,

I agree with you 100%. I've been Shooting since I was very young and a gun rights enthusiast since my teen years. My father was a cop, and not "into" guns. He was MR. Gun Safety, and an awesome shot, but he never owned more than two guns at a time in his life (three if you count that shotgun he took from some BG's.. the ATF would not have approved). Only recently haas the gun culture really turned against LE. Similarly, over the last 10-15 years, it has become politically fashionable for the upper echelon cops to support gun control. The average cop on the street is still pro-gun 90% of the time, in my experience.

We should not be having this discussion, not in regards to local LE anyway. You wanna talk about the federal HRT? Fine. You wanna talk about using the Army as a domestic police force? Fine. But don't talk about what gear & training local cops don't need, unless you mention "ethnic sensitivity" and "tattle tale devices" on patrol cars.


Dennis,
That wasn't my point at all. I never imagined firemen sitting around wishing they had something to do. In fact, the point is that they find plenty of things to keep busy with while nothing is burning, specificaly, as you noted, training and education. Police Departments pretty obviously have the same things to be done as Fire depts.. and they either cost time or money. In LE, the men need to be on the street all the time, so many of those "chores" eat up money. Every mechanic in the garage might eat up the cost of ammo for another 4 hours on the range for every officer. Every Painter hired might take money out of the budget to pay a trainer to come and teach a special class to the detectives. You don't drive around all day looking for fires, and the citizens don't expect you to.

And, What about the "Red Wall of silence" ?? It may not be a popular media catch phrase, but don't firemen cover for one another? Even though lives and property are on the line? If a firefighter made a decision that resulted in a loss of life or a serious loss of property that may not have been 100% necessary, would all the other firefighters jump up to tell everyone about it? Would he get "exposed," or would the incident by kept quiet. What if the guy making the decision was well liked? What he had saved a little baby the week before? I'm not talking about negligence or abuse of power. Not some guy who was afraid to go into a burning building, or one that just stood outside and laughed while people burned up... I'm talking about a "heads or tails" 50-50 decision, and the guy chose the wrong one. Would firefighters hang him out to dry? I doubt it, not the firefighters I know. And I am damn glad to.

In both the Military and in LE I saw very quickly that there is a professional courtesy and comradery that allows a person to make a mistake. That courtesy exists because the environment demands that decisions be made without hesitation, based on gut feelings. It is a courtesy that judges intentions, not outcomes. It is a courtesy that is often seen in close friendships, and between brothers.

------------------
-Essayons


[This message has been edited by Rob (edited May 31, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited May 31, 1999).]
 
GLV: Had to laugh at the "special permit, 'law enforcement only' dictionary" joke! Actually, I have the newest, includes nonsexist guidelines, etc. Webster's in front of me and as of it's printing FIRE FIGHTERS, too, have made the cut to non-civilian status!

I agree that I fear the police WAY more than I've ever feared the criminal element. If I had to make a bet as to which I'd most likely lose my life to? A cop. Which more likely to smash into my house at night and/or take my stuff? A cop. No doubt about it. (And no, I'm no kind of criminal.)

Now Rob, tell me again about how you stopped every car that passed by that corner? What part am I not getting here because your Probable Cause was.....? Passing the corner? Is this a new police Profile scheme? Anyone passing by a crime scene in the days or weeks following the crime is likely the perpetrator so we have probable cause to "check their papers", inconvenience them, invade their privacy, ask a lot of questions not related to the purpose of the stop (which was what? Oh yeah, driving past the corner.) But, you know, you did recover a stolen car and netted a few miscelaneous tickets, so that's pretty good. I guess the 140 some other motorists are the "Drop in the bucket" factor I learned about earlier. No, maybe random police road blocks should be given a chance?


[This message has been edited by Jordan (edited May 31, 1999).]
 
rob, i will admit to playing devils advocate somewhat. my intent was not to split fire /ems/leo relations , but it seems thats what it brought on . my sincere apologies.
too many people, who don't know differently, think that all leos spend alltheir time in a donut shop, and all firefighters sit around ,eat and play cards.
we both know its not true. thanks for pointing out my error in the ny incident. i don't follow the news closely anymore, and that was what i remembered from an early story.
thanks to dennis for pointing out the thousand and one tasks that administrators load us with, because they know we "just sit around"
i know that leos also have alot put on them that is basically useless makework. ialso know that court takes up your offdays.

someone said that it was sad we were having this discussion, and thats both good and bad. there will always be disagreement on how public employees do their jobs, but the fact that we're having this discussion means they're doing ok .

i know that leo budgets are strapped , rob, fire is too, moreso often because too many see us as unneeded until the moment arrives,then we are chastised for taking so long to come.
my point with increasing training hrs. for leos was that i think we lose too many because they don't get enough training.
1 hour a week is 52 hrs annually, how hard would it be to double that? the most expensive item in any budget is personnel, and i think we should protect our assets.


iagree with your sentiments far more than i disagree, rob, my thanks for the job you do.
chris moore
 
After a good night’s sleep, perhaps I can adhere to Don Lucibella’s (our
Godfather) exhortation to, “Think twice, post once.”

Let me try something for general evaluation. Let’s use “SWAT” to refer to the
general concept of para-military force - the guys in black - regardless of their unit
(e.g. local, FBI, ATF, etc.).

1) Surely we all agree there is a need for SWAT and in most cases they show
restraint, contain the problem, protect the public, etc.

2) When SWAT uses force which seems (to the civilians) inappropriate,
unnecessary, and/or immoral, it adversely affects public trust. (I agree this seems
more prevalent with the feds than locals.)
2a) When members of law enforcement(LE) dismiss such civilian concerns with a
wave of the hand or state that civilians can not understand (as though we have a
congenital defect), many of us civilians take offence. If the purpose of LE is “to
serve and protect”, we civilians have the right - in fact we have the *obligation* -
to demand an explanation. Law enforcement dare not take on the role of the
“standing army” prohibited by the intent of our forefathers.
2b) Rather than go into a long diatribe about SWAT errors (both real and
imagined), let’s agree that errors are made rather than argue about which decisions
are right or wrong. Let’s consider errors a “given” (or we’ll open a thread and I’ll
put down twenty or so).

3) Could it be a good analogy to consider SWAT very much like a gun in one
respect?

When used properly, it saves lives, preserves property, etc. When used improperly
it causes harm.

Would *that* concept work for us? If so, then:

4) What we (ALL of us) must ensure is that SWAT is not only trained in weapons
and tactics but also in “strategy”. By this, I mean:
4a) the long-term development of weapons and tactics to meet future potential
threats;
4b) improvement in the use (and withholding) of reasonable and necessary force;
4c) improvement in self-evaluation and self-correction; and
4d) improvement in public relations.

5) SWAT must have public support or anti-SWAT leaders and politicians will
sub-optimize SWAT’s potential and endanger both SWAT members and civilians.
Therefore, the concept of integrity (in SWAT training) should be expanded to
include more than blind “knee-jerk” loyalty to SWAT comrades. Where is
integrity lacking? I have some tentative personal perceptions where training
may be inadequate:
5a) Integrity to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Even known cop-killers
have rights. Suspects should not be abused, beaten, tortured, or killed out of
revenge, anger, or ego-trips by law enforcement. (There are current newspaper
articles of court cases proving all of these things have happened by Law
Enforcement Officers, in some cases by SWAT-style personnel. Yes, I can
support this statement.)

5b) Integrity to an adequate and reasonable modus operandi, Rules of
Engagement, Policy - whatever you want to call it. SWAT should not “Kill
‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” - either in actuality or in the perception of the
public.

5c) SWAT must become self-policing and more open to public scrutiny! Not
necessarily their tactics, but in the explanation of why innocent people are injured
and killed, why their property is destroyed, etc. and what is being done to prevent
such atrocities in the future.

Rob,
In reference to firefighters, again, our experiences differ. In my (relatively short
time) of firefighter/EMT(basic) service there was no Red Wall of Silence. If a
firefighter messed up, he was called on it by his colleagues and supervisors. The
wrong choice in a 50-50 position usually resulted in “suggestions” by colleagues
and “training” by the supervisor. Firefighters (in my area) police their own to a
much greater extent than I have seen in law enforcement - especially what seems to
exist in federal and “big city” law enforcement.

Firefighters use verbal/physical abuse and shunning. Supervisors use extra duty or
training, demotion, transfer, and firing. The fire department and EMS are subject
to the close and continuous scrutiny of our County Commissioners Courts - they
hold the purse strings to ensure compliance with their requests, etc.

Your experience, which I do not question or refute, apparently is the opposite.

6) We need SWAT. We can’t send guys with six-shot .38s against current-day
threats. But police should be on the same side as law-abiding Americans and vice
versa. However, until SWAT corrects its force-for-the-sake-of-force image, it has not
earned our trust.
 
Dennis,

The ost profound part of your post, which contained many good points, is in comparing the concept of "SWAT" in the LE world to "your" (our) Concealed Carry handguns. That is why this conversation bothers me. People who are fighting tooth and nail to be able to defend themselves with any firearm/calibre/etc are at teh same time saying the people who purposely walk into harms way may be too well armed or trained. When looked at from that point of view, I hope it seems as ludicrous to you all as it does to me.

Jordan,

No one was "pulled over", as cars came to a stop sign at an intersection of a one way street and a short cross street (actually the entrance to one end of the project), detectives approached the car, with a phrase like "Can I talk to you for a minute?", handed them a CrimeStoppers card with a phone number, and a flyer that listed a reward, a description of the crime and a description of the suspect. While the detectives talked with the drivers, a patrol car parked on the sidewalk ran the tags of the car. The only time that anyone was asked for their "papers" was if they had expired tags, or if the tags came back as belonging to another car. The one exception to that was a guy who was a known drug dealer who did not live in that project and had been told not to come back. He was asked for consent to search his car, which he gave. In fact, several people who could've been written tickets were not, such as people with busted tail lights and headlights that were burnt out. For that matter, I doubt 10% of the people talked to were actually wearing their seat belts.. so this was not a harrassment situation.. or any kind of "crackdown."

Almost everyone stopped seemed happy to see the cops their. Many residents came up to us with what they percieved as helpful information and a word of thanks. We had about 20-30 kids there at one point, all aksing many questions and behaving rather well. A couple of them noticed my "Sheriff" badge, which they are not used to seeing, and a 5 year old asked me if I rode a horse, so that became a little running joke... The atmosphere was not tense, in fact it was pretty relaxed really, with the 30-45 second exception of the stolen car suspect being removed from his car and taken into custody.

As for "random" police roadblocks, Nashville instituted just such a thing for a short period of time last year in high-crime neighborhoods. I disagreed with it 100%, as did many officers... they ended after a couple months and have not be reinstituted.

For everyone's benefit, remember that I do this work because I enjoy it. I am a volunteer. I can go in late, come home early, and I don;t have to put on a badge for 4 months in a row if I don't want to. I don't have to go into the projects and I don't have to go to murder scenes. I don't need to be "thanked," in fact it makes me feel a little goofy, but I will always jump to the defense of the guys that ARE expected to be out there everyday and every night.

------------------
-Essayons
 
rob , again you make a good point, and i seem to have lost sight of one of my own.
for assuredly, we must be united inthe face of our opposition , or this will be the result and they will win.in nitpicking , we are wrong, gross errors must be redressed, but we are sweating the little stuff.
i think we're all on the same side here, just not sure of the playbook.
thanks for doing something i enjoyed always made me feel goofy too. iwas a volunteer long before i was paid as a firefighter.
 
Rob, on 'civilian ' , I give. I guess I dislike being called a civilian by someone who is really a civilian. LEOs are not part of the military, thank God.

Citizens: yes cops are citizens, and I wish they would remember that fact. Instead they brag about being members of the largest street gang in America.

I, too, object to your remarks about EMTs, and I will guarantee the required continuing education, in our state, is higher for an EMT than for an LEO. Next, I will also guarantee the locals who give their time as EMTs, have policed up more puke and blood, washed more vehicles, disinfected more vehicles than any LEO that is not an active EMT. All of the volunteer EMTs and many of the paid EMTs get their in service time on their own time, not paid. GLV

[This message has been edited by GLV (edited May 31, 1999).]
 
Rob-- Nothing you wrote here reassured me that your operation was constitutionally sound. In fact it sounds WORSE than I initially thought because I hoped there was a part I had misunderstood. Your department, the Mayor, hell, the Supreme Court may think this is okay, but to me it boarders on shocking! It's despicable!

Where are all the strident, "no compromise" Bill of Rights advocates that have great things to say all over this board about the 2nd? You aren't reading this thread? Started from the 2nd amend and haven't made it to the 4th yet? Afraid to challenge Rob because (before he got onto subjects other than gun rights) he sounded like a helluva great guy?

FYI: You have NO obligation to talk to police and if you do you should probably have you head examined.
Imagine this scenario>>
Cop: "Good evening. Could I talk to you for a second?"
You: "Sure officer. What can I do for you?"
Cop: "I see you have a gallon of milk there. Did you just come from the Jiffy-Mart?"
You: "Yep, my wife needed some for a recipe and I felt like going for a walk so..."
Cop: "I need you to come down to the station with me for further questioning. You see, there was a robbery/murder at Jiffy-Mart about 5 mins ago. The suspect was wearing a grey sweatshirt just like yours and you just told me that you just came from there. Assume the position."

Think of how his evening would have gone better this way>>
Cop: "... talk to you..?"
You: "It's my policy to never talk to strangers." (Keep walking)

Also Rob: Reread my post, I didn't say "pulling over".

[This message has been edited by Jordan (edited May 31, 1999).]
 
Jordan, If someone had "refused" to talk to an officer, you are correct in that they would have been doing nothing wrong. They would've been well within their rights to say "No" when asked we could talk to them for a minute. If someone had said that to me, I would've handed a flyer with a polite "have a good evening." I imagine that the other officers would've done the same thing. The people had to stop, since there was stop sign. If they'd've thrown the flyer out their window, they'd've been littering.

To my knowledge, no one was talked to against their will or was stopped for anything more than a minute or two at the very most without PC (expired or stolen tags, etc..). I'm sorry you think that trying to solve a murder and encourage participation in the Crimestoppers program violates peoples 4th amendment rights. Do you feel the same about vol. Fire departments and Cheerleaders who stand at traffic signals and collect donations??

If someone was walking away from the Jiffy-Mart and matched the description of the person who had just robbed it, I assure you that they would not be "asked" if they could be talked to at all. The PC would exist before the conversation.

Furthermore, I assure you that there are plenty of people around here who never fail to challenge me and point out when I am wrong, out of line, obstinate, ignorant or just plain stupid. :). In fact, Spartacus, who I count among my friends and one of the guys I would trust if the balloon goes up, usually opposes me rather strongly on these issues, I'm sure he has been busy or hasn't noticed this thread...
And there's always GLV.... ;)

------------------
-Essayons
 
Jordan, don't fret, I'm here with ya. I just now read this thread, and I must say felt the same way about Rob's description of the event. Rob, I have not read, nor do I know where to find, your original post on the events in question. However, I find the common police tactic of "running the tags" of people who are not even suspects in a crime an appalling infringement on the 4th amendment. Would you please tell all of us exactly what information the police get when they "run the tags"?

My dictionary, Webster's New Collegiate circa 1945 lists civilian: one not professionally in the army or navy. Admittedly, this is from an early police state dictionary. But really, this entire leo/citizen issue boils down to an us vs. them scenario. Groups always try to distinguish themselves from others, and use jargon, uniforms, etc to do so. The problem lies in the fact that these feelings can carry over into the performance of their duties and beyond; "he's an untrained civilian, he shouldn't be allowed to have/do that."

Maybe LEOs can make a greater effort to act like one of us if that is how they wish to be perceived.

[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited May 31, 1999).]
 
Rob, you said you are a volunteer, and I respect that. Many of us do our 'community' service by being volunteers. However:

POLICE OFFICERS ARE VOLUNTEERS. No one drafted them into the law enforcement business. They can quit anytime. It is not like being drafted into the military for a specific time, duration, etc. They are not held to a standard like the UCMJ.

Perhaps if LEOs were held to a higher standard, and if the standard was uniform, and if the attitude of all LEOs was; officer, or citizen, right is right and wrong is wrong, perhaps we could move away from the 'us and them' attitude/situation we are in today. GLV
 
Some people think Us & them means Cops and Non-cops. Some people think it means Glockers and 1911 shooters. Some people think it means inline Muzzleloaders vs. traditional ones.

If we continue to ignore the fact taht all shooters/gunowners/hunters are in the fight on the same side we are going to lose. Many more cops are on our side than are against us.

I don't happen to like the way that some teachers talk about guns, but I don't let that interfere with my opinion of teachers providing a valuable service to the community. God Knows, If I was a teacher, I'd be pushing my views too. And, I think, if you guys were cops, you'd be wanting to be well armed and trained.

------------------
-Essayons
 
" Where are all the strident, "no compromise" Bill of Rights advocates that have great things to say all over this board about the 2nd? You aren't reading this thread? Started from the 2nd amend and haven't made it to the 4th yet? Afraid to challenge Rob because (before he got onto subjects other than gun rights) he sounded like a helluva great guy?

Jordan, we're right here! Trouble is alot of us here have been over this ground before. Do a search and you'll see. It's like Kodiak said about beatin' a dead horse, been there/ done that. And none of us always agree w/ Rob, or anybody else all the time. Sometimes it's fun just to sit back and see what unfolds, might even learn something. I must say that it's been very interesting so far. Oh, by the way, even though Rob & I see things a little different, I still think he is a helluva great guy. even when he's wrong. ;)

------------------
fiat justitia

[This message has been edited by longhair (edited May 31, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by longhair (edited May 31, 1999).]
 
Mal H:

When I did my cut and paste I left part of it behind in my word processor. Funky Wagnalls defines civilian as:

"One who follows the pursuits of civil life, as distinguished from military, naval or clerical."

I went on to define civil.

Kodiac is right this dead horse has been kicked to death and then some.

Now if we are all done pissing each other off, can anyone tell me how to get a high cap magazine with 13 rounds to seat in my new Glock 21 with the slide closed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top