Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Tx Sen Cruz tells Limbaugh the "inconvenient truth" about pending immigration bill

samzheresamzhere BannedPosts: 10,923 Senior Member
In an interview with Rush Limbaugh, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said that the upcoming "gang of 8" immigration reform bill will create a flood of 30 million new illegal immigrants. Here's the link to the story as carried by the Houston Chronicle:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/06/cruz-tells-rush-limbaugh-that-gang-of-8-immigration-bill-might-prompt-flood-of-30-million-undocumented-workers/

Thankfully, we've got a few genuine conservative Republicans in the Senate and Congress who aren't afraid to speak the truth. ANY "reform" bill is worthless unless we close the borders first.
«13

Replies

  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    I disagree. Opposition is growing and I actually think that the bill will fail, at least in the House, which is sufficient.

    Of course the Demos will use this to attempt to crucify Republicans in 2014 and 2016. The effect of this will be that instead of 95% of Hispanics voting Democrat like they always do, 95% of Hispanics will now vote Democrat. Oh, wait! There's NO difference! Duh.

    Gang, you CAN make a difference, however. We've got both our US Senators conservative now (Cornyn just offered an amendment to the immigration bill that requires the borders first be secured, amendment was defeated but at least we know where our Texas senators stand).

    I'm also happy to have a conservative US Rep in Congress.

    Note that all these are card-carrying Republicans, not 3rd party. But they are also conservatives who ran within the party and won, just like our conservative pro-gun governor.

    The key to taking our government back begins with local elections, statewide especially. If we Texans hadn't swamped the polls and elected a majority of Republicans for both houses, there would have never been a reapportioning law that then gave Texas even more Republican power.

    It starts with supporting conservative Republican candidates in the primaries, getting them nominated rather than country club Republicans. The average citizen WILL vote for a true conservative, if the candidate is sharp, decent, and not some fool. The average citizen WILL be receptive to promises about cutting spending, lowering taxes, spending money on legit projects, and curbing crime.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    That's all well and good. But the average citizen will NOT vote for a bunch of Bible-totin' fools. Which is all the Republicans have given us in the last 30+ years. Conservative? Yes. Theocratic? No. This one problem has been driving people away from so-called "conservatives" and "Republicans" for decades.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    In an interview with Rush Limbaugh, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said that the upcoming "gang of 8" immigration reform bill will create a flood of 30 million new illegal immigrants. Here's the link to the story as carried by the Houston Chronicle:

    http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/06/cruz-tells-rush-limbaugh-that-gang-of-8-immigration-bill-might-prompt-flood-of-30-million-undocumented-workers/

    Thankfully, we've got a few genuine conservative Republicans in the Senate and Congress who aren't afraid to speak the truth. ANY "reform" bill is worthless unless we close the borders first.

    Sam, whether it passes or not, we can take solace in knowing we have some great legislators here in Lonestarville.

    "It's great to be a Texan!"

    However, if this passes and Cruz is right, which he usually proves to be, we're truly doomed as a country.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    That's all well and good. But the average citizen will NOT vote for a bunch of Bible-totin' fools. Which is all the Republicans have given us in the last 30+ years. Conservative? Yes. Theocratic? No. This one problem has been driving people away from so-called "conservatives" and "Republicans" for decades.

    Only in Commiefornia
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,970 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    That's all well and good. But the average citizen will NOT vote for a bunch of Bible-totin' fools. Which is all the Republicans have given us in the last 30+ years. Conservative? Yes. Theocratic? No. This one problem has been driving people away from so-called "conservatives" and "Republicans" for decades.

    This, and a few other reasons, is why the Libertarian Party is picking up more and more steam.

    Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,986 Senior Member
    This, and a few other reasons, is why the Libertarian Party is picking up more and more steam.
    That's why my wife and I both joined same. A party that truly believes in freedom. What a concept.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    That's all well and good. But the average citizen will NOT vote for a bunch of Bible-totin' fools. Which is all the Republicans have given us in the last 30+ years. Conservative? Yes. Theocratic? No. This one problem has been driving people away from so-called "conservatives" and "Republicans" for decades.

    Well, your first premise is what I said in the other thread. Although I do not believe that theocratic candidates are all we've been "given" over the past years. Senators Cruz and Cornyn, for example, are very low key regarding religion, so is Gov Rick Perry. When asked they'll state their religious beliefs but they also don't campaign on such.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    This, and a few other reasons, is why the Libertarian Party is picking up more and more steam.

    Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

    Shotgun, tell me, how do you measure "picking up steam"? Exactly how many Libertarians have been elected to national office in the last, oh, 10 years? How many US Senators are Libertarian?

    Locally and statewide, maybe. But nationally, the Libertarian party only has a rare chance to occasionally elect a US Rep (Ron Paul for example), and it's next to impossible to elect a Libertarian US Senator -- if I'm wrong, list them for me please. Where I still believe that the power should reside is if "small-l" libertarian-leaning conservative Republicans can get elected and then can exert influence toward passing libertarian (maybe not Libertarian) type laws.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    That's why my wife and I both joined same. A party that truly believes in freedom. What a concept.

    I'm happy for you guys. Be sure to keep me informed whenever a California Libertarian gets elected to national office, okay? (sound of crickets chirping...)
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Well, your first premise is what I said in the other thread. Although I do not believe that theocratic candidates are all we've been "given" over the past years. Senators Cruz and Cornyn, for example, are very low key regarding religion, so is Gov Rick Perry. When asked they'll state their religious beliefs but they also don't campaign on such.
    Perry's getting some pretty good press about the "Merry Christmas" bill. And he's not shying away from it, and using all the good religious code words. "Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion" being one of his nuggets. I wonder if it's a coincidence he signed it before going to the Faith & Freedom Coalition's "Road to Majority" conference in Washington, D.C.?
    I'm just here for snark.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Where I still believe that the power should reside is if "small-l" libertarian-leaning conservative Republicans can get elected and then can exert influence toward passing libertarian (maybe not Libertarian) type laws.

    This country was founded on Libertarian principles. At this point, passing Libertarian type laws translates into REPEALING the crap we have now.

    Over the years, the relegious coalitions in America have destroyed the concept of liberty, all backed by the GOP. Prohibition I & II have/has spawned more violence, tyrannical laws, LE spending, incarceration, interference with foreign countries, and general police-statism than all the liberal leaning laws combined. Do not mistake this statement for defense of liberal nonsense. Just don't tell me the GOP as a whole is interested in individual freedom.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,970 Senior Member
    I'll dig up a list this weekend if this thread is still going strong. It is state and local level stuff, but as they say: "We all gotta start somewhere."
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Sam,

    The Republican party is selling you out. Isn't it funny that they are the ones who put the Patriot Act into place, oh yeah, then voted for its extension, yet now they are screaming about Obama and the NSA?

    You've been had, pardner. Don't feel bad, because so was I. But I've taken the blinders off.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Libertarians need to run as Republicans. That is what we need. Libertarians also need to join the Republican party and stop letting the theocratic, good ole' boy, country club people run their theocratic, good ole' boy country club candidates every election. Third party just don't work-- we have to revolt within an existing party to make anything change. We need to take control and marginalize the idiots.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • terminator012terminator012 Senior Member Posts: 3,930 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Sam,

    The Republican party is selling you out. Isn't it funny that they are the ones who put the Patriot Act into place, oh yeah, then voted for its extension, yet now they are screaming about Obama and the NSA?

    You've been had, pardner. Don't feel bad, because so was I. But I've taken the blinders off.

    Buffy I have to agree. This crap has been going on for years behind closed doors. The only difference now is the bunch we have in power doesn't care if everyone knows. Their attitude is, yea we are doing it what you going to do about it. Knowing nothing will ever be done.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Knowing nothing will ever be done.
    ...because everyone takes their ball and goes third party. We need to grow some spine and take ownership as opposed to walking away. That is all fine and dandy, but they have a network, history, and leadership positions-- everything a third party doesn't have. Why start new when we can just take theirs over?

    Occupy GOP :usa:
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Let us talk a bit about the "theocrats"...
    Up through Carter, they belonged to the Democrats. Starting with Reagan, they became part of the Republican party. Since then, they basically took over the place. Tea Party? That was a nice grass roots thing all about smaller government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility. What the hell happened? The theocrats infiltrated after 2010 and turned every one else off. Romney? Not a perfect candidate, but he seemed like a decent guy and has a damn good head for getting business back to business in this country. Obama has no clue about that at all. Given the two, Romney was a better choice-- all else being equal, we need freaking jobs! What happened? He kissed theocrat butt to get the nomination which alienated pretty much everyone else. After that, they didn't turn out to vote because they didn't want to vote for a Mormon.

    The Democrats can have them back. Quit letting them push you around, and make this our own.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Why start new when we can just take theirs over?

    It is easier to build a new house on a clean lot than to renovate a rundown, termite ridden, rat-infested, leaky roofed, crap-hole that has a family of 'possums living under the porch. You can't ever completely get rid of the creaky floors or the vermin. It may take longer to get a roof over your head, but it will be a place worth living in.

    Remember Ron Paul during the primaries? The GOP (and FOX news) marginalized him and his supporters. He was barely questioned during debates. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about Paul, but he wasn't given equal time in any of the events. The same treatment was given to all the other non-establishment Republicans.

    How can you say that primaries are the solution when the GOP manipulates the game? The party decides who they think is most electable instead of giving all the candidates equal time and let the members pick the nominee.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Remember Ron Paul during the primaries? The GOP (and FOX news) marginalized him and his supporters. He was barely questioned during debates. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about Paul, but he wasn't given equal time in any of the events. The same treatment was given to all the other non-establishment Republicans
    Yes I do. Millions of others do as well. He didn't get equal treatment or time, but he did manage to get his message out. How did the Libertarian candidate do? That's right.... Nobody has a clue who the hell it was! Nobody heard his message either. Ron Paul is a household name because he used the Republican party (as his um..."mistress") to get an audience for his message.
    CaliFFL wrote:
    How can you say that primaries are the solution when the GOP manipulates the game? The party decides who they think is most electable instead of giving all the candidates equal time and let the members pick the nominee?
    They make the rules because we aren't showing up to make them. Get enough of us there and we will make our own rules. There were enough people to buck the system and get Rand Paul the nomination-- he was not the establishment pick. The same thing happened to Cruz-- he pisses off just as many Republicans as he does Democrats! It has been done and it can be done again. We need to stop being crying little women and make this happen.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Ron Paul is a household name because he used the Republican party (as his um..."mistress") to get an audience for his message.

    Not entirely accurate. He used social media and a rabid core of supporters to get his message out. Without the 'net, the establishment would've buried him.
    Jermanator wrote: »
    They make the rules because we aren't showing up to make them. Get enough of us there and we will make our own rules. There were enough people to buck the system and get Rand Paul the nomination-- he was not the establishment pick. The same thing happened to Cruz-- he pisses off just as many Republicans as he does Democrats! It has been done and it can be done again. We need to stop being crying little women and make this happen.

    Cruz and Paul were elected at a time when the tea party had momentum, in their perspective states. The GOP won't allow either of these to run for the big chair. It will be Christie or some other left of center candidate.

    I get where you are coming from. I really do. Changing the GOP from within could work in maybe 5-6 generations. But today, I'd rather vote my conscience EVERY time, and sleep knowing I didn't support a candidate that is damaging what's left of the COTUS and especially the BOR.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    To be even more controversial, I think a very strong libertarian argument could be made in favor of a multinational treaty along the lines of NAFTA that allowed for completely unfettered migration and work rights for all citizens of the US, Mexico, and Canada.
    I wouldn't see that as a bad thing if Mexico had their crap together. Work rights? The Canadian and US system is a bit too different for that, but I would be hip on the migration thing (with Canada). Mexico is too corrupt and Third World and all it would do is drag the rest of us down with them.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Not entirely accurate. He used social media and a rabid core of supporters to get his message out. Without the 'net, the establishment would've buried him.



    Cruz and Paul were elected at a time when the tea party had momentum, in their perspective states. The GOP won't allow either of these to run for the big chair. It will be Christie or some other left of center candidate.

    I get where you are coming from. I really do. Changing the GOP from within could work in maybe 5-6 generations. But today, I'd rather vote my conscience EVERY time, and sleep knowing I didn't support a candidate that is damaging what's left of the COTUS and especially the BOR.

    I'm with ya on that one.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Cruz and Paul were elected at a time when the tea party had momentum, in their perspective states. The GOP won't allow either of these to run for the big chair. It will be Christie or some other left of center candidate.
    I don't think I have ever seen a time where only 2 senators (freshmen at that) have wielded so much power. Imagine if there were 10 more. Both are getting serious looks at the presidency this early in.
    CaliFFL wrote:
    I get where you are coming from. I really do. Changing the GOP from within could work in maybe 5-6 generations. But today, I'd rather vote my conscience EVERY time, and sleep knowing I didn't support a candidate that is damaging what's left of the COTUS and especially the BOR.
    I think it is going to happen either in 2016 or 2020. The Gen-Xer's are starting to come into power and they are a whole different beast. If they nominate Christie in 2016, that will be their last gasp.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    To be even more controversial, I think a very strong libertarian argument could be made in favor of a multinational treaty along the lines of NAFTA that allowed for completely unfettered migration and work rights for all citizens of the US, Mexico, and Canada.

    It could work as long as the US abolished all handouts. You work somewhere or you starve. As soon as you establish a safety net, we have what exactly what we have now. Even more parasites settling in on the backs of the American middle class.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Sam,

    The Republican party is selling you out. Isn't it funny that they are the ones who put the Patriot Act into place, oh yeah, then voted for its extension, yet now they are screaming about Obama and the NSA?

    You've been had, pardner. Don't feel bad, because so was I. But I've taken the blinders off.

    Er, no. SOME of the Republican party is not my type at all. But here in Texas we've got Ted Cruz, a genuine conservative and Teaparty member who won. He's the sort of Republican whom I support.

    And I continue to insist... Tell me truly about the success that the Libertarian party's had... Name ONE state that voted Libertarian for a presidential nominee. Name ONE Libertarian US senator.

    Compromise is part of LIFE. Maybe some people here live totally alone and never have personal relationships, marriages, work with other people, and so on. They exist in total isolation and have no need to compromise with other people during their life. Keen. But most of us live or work with others. I'm not saying that I'm a great example but I'm now in a close, live-in, personal relationship with a lovely gal, and I compromise ALL THE TIME. So does she.

    I also compromise with my editor in my writing, compromise with my neighbors, compromise with people in the store or bar or restaurant, too. And when I was working full time, I compromised with my colleagues.

    What's so damn sacred about refusing to compromise in your politics? Politics is a complex interdependent situation and NOBODY wins an election without effecting SOME sort of compromise. This doesn't mean giving up principles. It does however mean sliding some druthers and wants back and forth on the scale so that agreement can be reached between two or more groups.

    Voting our "conscience" is a sham, because there is nobody who's perfect for whom we can vote anyway. Even the ideal candidate represents a set of variations on the "ideal" individual.

    I much prefer to compromise and vote for the BEST possible candidate rather than either refuse to vote or write in M. Mouse or some other candidate who's never going to win. If some here can sleep soundly knowing they helped elect yet another Democrat, hey, be my guest.

    Maybe where some of you live it will take generations to change the Republican party. Here in Texas it took ONE election to get Ted Cruz in the Senate.

    I'm sorry but I am NOT going to waste my vote by casting it for someone who has ZERO chance of being elected.

    I'm not dissing the Libertarian or Green or Jesus party or whomever. If you can show me ONE successful election result nationally for ANY 3rd party, and by that I mean a statewide election like US Senate, I'd be happy to hear about it. Show me ONE state that's gone for any candidate rather than Democrat or Republican in recent times.

    Results do matter. And if you're not elected, you can NOT get things done.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    Alpha-- By the way you describe it, that might be a good thing. North America has lots and lots of great stuff going for it: Agriculture is outstanding, industry, natural resources (including energy, lumber, and minerals), technology.... Maybe bringing in some Americans and Canadians would get Mexico with the program to where they are actually at their potential.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    To be even more controversial, I think a very strong libertarian argument could be made in favor of a multinational treaty along the lines of NAFTA that allowed for completely unfettered migration and work rights for all citizens of the US, Mexico, and Canada.

    You never had to wait 7 hours to get treated in the ER have you? Well that's how long it took me to wait when I broke my foot last January because there were dozens of un-insured illegals ahead of us patients who are citizens. Secure our borders, prosecute ANYONE who hires ANY illegal alien and deport every last man, woman and child that's here illegally, and yes, that includes anchor babies---PERIOD! They can then wait in line like everyone else. I'm tired of the games and the bleeding heart "human rights" BS that both Republicans and Democrats are using just to manipulate and gain votes. Our nation is literally being destroyed by this crap and any amnesty or open border legislation will finish us.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Libertarians need to run as Republicans. That is what we need. Libertarians also need to join the Republican party and stop letting the theocratic, good ole' boy, country club people run their theocratic, good ole' boy country club candidates every election. Third party just don't work-- we have to revolt within an existing party to make anything change. We need to take control and marginalize the idiots.

    :that:

    The Libertarians have always had the luxury of knowing that they will never have to back up any of their ideas with action, because they are not electable. They can say any damn thing they want, because they are already treated as a fringe group by the media, and most of the public goes along with it. They have never attracted a successful candidate with the charisma to bring people 'into the fold.'

    Ron Paul showed them the way, but his foreign policy was simply not acceptable to Republicans or conservative leaning independents. Many would be more receptive, now, to even those views, from a 'new' candidate. Also, he was too old and not very appealing, personality-wise. His son is not as ideologically pure, but has less negatives and more positives, when viewed by the average voter.

    Real conservatives are not bound to an ideology in the way most electable candidates are - they are just realists who want grown-ups running the country and doing things that have been proven to work. Ideologues tell you what should work - conservatives tell you what has worked.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    ...the average citizen will NOT vote for a bunch of Bible-totin' fools. Which is all the Republicans have given us in the last 30+ years. Conservative? Yes. Theocratic? No. This one problem has been driving people away from so-called "conservatives" and "Republicans" for decades.

    Let me explain what is wrong with this statement.

    You are attacking an ideology (Christianity) with your ideology (Atheism). There should be no place in national politics for either. American politics, by its very nature, requires compromise between factions who agree on a common goal - individual freedom, as intended by the founding fathers. Many of them were religious, and no doubt, many would have admitted to being atheists or agnostics, had the times allowed a place for such heresy. But, above all, they mostly put their ideological beliefs aside, in favor of being common sense managers of the issues that represented the majority. There were issues that, ideologically, they were never going to agree upon, but they were pragmatic enough to figure out that the most important things could be compromised upon to reach a charter that would be acceptable to a majority of the population.

    That is what is needed now. For years, we have been sucked in by the Marxists who now dominate the Democrat party, who have shoved minority rule down our throats, by creating coalitions of leftist groups and unrelenting propaganda - something that their ideology allows. Their focus is attacking an ideology (Christianity) that did once dominate our politics, and they suck in other ideologues, like the Libertarians, to help them destroy their opposition. They even ally themselves with Islam, because even though their own Marxist ideology is against all religion, Muslims are also allowed to lie and cheat against their enemies, just as Marxists are. All of these ideologies combine to create a 'straw man' that is easy for the politically unsophisticated to hate, and they pound this message into their heads from a very early age.

    The kind of people we want in politics are realists, not ideologues, because one ideology is just as corruptible as any other, over time. We need people who agree on what works best for the majority, and will make equitable compromises to achieve that, without placing undue hardships on the people who don't agree with them. When we elect ideologues, they will always attempt to punish opposing ideologies, and that requires overwhelming power - the thing that keeps our government corrupt. If our government was run by competent managers, instead of ideologues, it would be smaller and more responsive.
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    Well said!
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement