Jump to content

ballistic fingerprinting


Guest Grayfox
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Grayfox

ok how many have heard of this method??? for those that havent, the govt basically takes your gun and gets a ballistic fingerprint from it, so if the gun is used in a violent crime where the weapon is discharged, they can trace the ballistics back to the owner of the gun.

i seen a letter to the editor in the local newspaper (sic) and the local hillperson (gotta be politically correct you know) went on this rampage saying how its another form of gun control, and that only honest citizens would register their guns to be tested, and that all a perp would have to do to avoid it would be to switch the barrel and firing pin.

i got on my soapbox because this cletus wannabe gun nut apparently didnt know what the hell he was spewing off at the piehole about.

first of all im for the idea. i also believe businesses that sell firearms submit to the testing BEFORE selling their wares so any guns that are used in violent crimes can be traced to the store, then to the owner. as for the switching of the barrel and firing pin... that stuff isnt cheap. even if you can change it yourself, you still have to buy the barrel and the pin, which will leave a definite paper trail.

now depending on how vigorous the detectives will be with following said papertrail is yet to be determined... if its implemented.

now i know theres bound to be some loopholes... there ALWAYS is in things like these. as for the criminals that already have firearms... half of me thinks its like closing the barn door after the horses get out...

anyways, lets hear some thoughts on this. do you folks think this is another form of gun control??? or gun control to a point??? are you for/against??? either neither??? lets hear some.

[ 11-04-2002, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballistic trajectory "Fingerprinting," would be worthless for (as stated earlier) the barrel could be replaced and the catalogued barrel may develop new markings over time from corrosion and use that would invalidate the test.

Gun control is a matter of control. The issue is not to "save innocent victims from gun crimes," but simply to control the population. The second amendment allows gun ownership and that right can never be withdrawn.

I agree that restrictions should be placed upon individuals who have demonstrated they lack the responsibility to properly use a firearm however the right cannot be denied to any citizen of the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Grayfox,

I disagree so much that it is hard to describe.

Each time a weapon is fired, it's ballistic fingerprints change.

This is just another way for the gun controllers to get around the fact that they cannot register and keep a database of weapons and their owners.

Real hard to take weapons when you have no clue where they are.

Ballistic fingerprinting is useless and is only viable if the each round fired is fingerprinted one after the other. If you fire a gun, fingerprint it, and then after 200 rounds, fingerprint it again, it will be completely different. Wear on the barrel, deposits from gunpowder residue, etc etc ad nauseum.

The Gun control freaks almost got ya Grayfox, hope I helped straighten you out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I don't know much about these issues normally and I know I am opening myself up for a beating. But......

I did hear, while trying to decide who I should vote for, for govenor , He basically said **not a direct quote** that the costs out-weigh the benefits. (WAIT! don't say I am saying a life has a price, I am not) His statement was based on the fact that it isn't proven to work.

This is my thought, it just came to me so it may be rough and hard to follow:

A lady gets beat by her husband, cops know charges are pending, he basically admits it. She takes him back anyway. Lets even say they took a finger print off her neck. Does this stop him from doing it again. I doubt it.

There are always good guys and bad guys and knowing their fingerprints are somewhere never stopped anyone from commiting a crime again. Why would a guns prints.

Wow I thought more about this than I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

ok, heres another point to ponder... how many crooks are going to spend the time and put a bunch of rounds thru a gun to change the ballistic signature??? the ones they mostly buy are throwaways anyway.

and im sorry jag, ive been shooting long enough to know that a single shot will not change the ballistic signature as drastically as you make it sound. it is very very minute, but still close enough to make a positive match. even a box of rounds wont change hardly at all. it will change a little but again not enough to make it look like another signature entirely. i studied alot about ballistics, and i carried a weapon all of my adult life for work and on my ccw. i even frequented the range twice a week, and i know i could have my .40 tested and the ballistic sig would have barely changed... and i figured to have put at least 20 boxes thru her.

so what to do to combat the time aspect??? perhaps ask (yes ask dont force) registered owners and shops to have their weapons tested on a regular basis... once every 3 months or so. i know that still wont help solve the problem totally, but i think it would help.

as for getting another barrel or firing pin for the weapon, in most cases you have to order it from the manufacturer, but you still have to buy it... unless you steel one or something

again dont get me wrong, im all for owning a gun, and for other RESPONSIBLE people to own a gun(s). its just that we need to weed out the non desireables, and i think this method would help.

as fr the repeat offender echo, youre right. what would stop someone whos shot someone before in a crime to do it again??? well i can think of a few things like electrocution, hanging, firing squad etc etc, but we'll save that for ANOTHER TOPIC... not this one.

[ 11-04-2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry,

the cure is worse then the disease.

a camels nose in the tent.

As soon as you allow the gun control socialists an opportunity to register guns, then it will continue unabated.

I would rather keep that door shut, thank you very much. All you will do is create criminals out of those gun owners that do not turn in their guns for ballistic testing,because I assure you, the criminals will not.

PS: I carry a gun EVERY day, it is on me at ALL times. I will NOT allow a government agency of any sort test my gun. If it makes me a criminal, so be it. They willnot know how many, what type, or anything else about my weapons. It is NONE of their business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not as familiar with firearms as some of you people, but the idea of ballistic fingerprinting raises a few questions for me.

First; how accurate is this technique? Would a few shots (or a few dozen) change the signature of a gun enough that it wouldn't stand up in a court of law?

Second; is there any advantage to fingerprinting the gun when it is first sold rather then after any crime has been committed with it? That is to say, wouldn't it be more accurate (and cost effective) to simply fingerprint a weapon after a crime has been committed then before?

And third; how much time and money would it take to implement this kind of comprehensive ballistic fingerprinting (especially considering that this is an unproven process)?

Also, there seams to be a couple of flaws in some of your reasoning.

Just because changing the firing pin and barrel cost money and leave a paper trail doesn't mean it couldn't be done, and such a paper trail couldn't be used to convict anyone of anything. Also, wouldn't it be possible simply to swap barrels and firing pins between two weapons of the same type?

Furthermore, this would be only useful in finding people who legally owned guns, if someone had a stolen or black market weapon then there would be no way to trace that weapon to them, and thus ballistic fingerprinting a weapon before it is sold is no more useful then any other type of gun control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

well first, i didnt say this was a cureall... by no means... and i wish people would understand that. i believe other methods should be implemented to weed out the non desireables. and i didnt say it was perfect either... i know it has some flaws.

quote:

Second; is there any advantage to fingerprinting the gun when it is first sold rather then after any crime has been committed with it? That is to say, wouldn't it be more accurate (and cost effective) to simply fingerprint a weapon after a crime has been committed then before?


well if you fingerprinted it after the crime it would be a bit late dont you think??? kind of like closing the barn door after the horses get out.

quote:

Just because changing the firing pin and barrel cost money and leave a paper trail doesn't mean it couldn't be done, and such a paper trail couldn't be used to convict anyone of anything. Also, wouldn't it be possible simply to swap barrels and firing pins between two weapons of the same type?


yes you can, but even 2 weapons made by the same manufacturer are alot different. the headspacing could be off by .100 of an inch, there could be a microscopic scratch in one of the barrels from machining etc etc... stuff that would show up different.

quote:

Furthermore, this would be only useful in finding people who legally owned guns, if someone had a stolen or black market weapon then there would be no way to trace that weapon to them,

this part all depends on how vigorously the pursuing detectives are willing to investigate the crime. if its put out on the black market it had to get there from somewhere right??? someone had to have bought it... it can be traced... the resources available to some of the investigating agencies are more than most people think.

they can test my weapon... i have nothing to hide. i just believe that other things need to be done as well to get guns out of the irresponsible hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The technique is sound enough that a number of Fraternal order of police leaders around the country are in favor of it. But I guess they are "gun control socialists" as well. Give me a break! Any tool that assist police in catching bad guys should be applauded, but once again the gun crazies show they lack brains as well as a conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Race,

Give me a flipping break, and when did you stop beating your wife?

That's what you are saying to gun owners.

Your gun will be used in a crime, therefore we are going to fingerprint it.

Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

BS, you guys haven't a clue.

Give them just a little peek into the door of gun registration, that's what it is by the way, and they will eventually go after them all.

What group dies first? every time gun registration of ANY sort has been implemented, guns have been confiscated. Once peoples self defense has been taken away, people begin dying. Hitler did it, the soviet union did it, China did it, North Korea did it.

What group of people have you decided dies first? Gays, liberals, catholics, Jews, the rich. Who?

Once you have gun control, the government goes out of control, that's history, it's a fact of life. Once the peoples only weapon of self defense is removed, they are helpless to stop any sort of barbarism.

History repeats itself because no one listened the first time.

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING!! HELLO!!!

Yeah, I may be paranoid, but I have a clue of what happened in the past. The liberals have stood the constitution on it's head with all their socialist programs, they are more then willing and able to force any number of things on us once we are helpless. Including killing those that disagree with them.

They have done it in the past, and if given the opportunity, they will do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

well first, i didnt say this was a cureall... by no means... and i wish people would understand that. i believe other methods should be implemented to weed out the non desireables. and i didnt say it was perfect either... i know it has some flaws.

I'm not sure how it would be used to weed out the "non desirables" though; it seams more a method for finding out who committed a crime rather then preventing crime in the first place. Nothing is wrong with this, but the way you stated that suggests that ballistic fingerprinting would stop crimes from being committed.

quote:

well if you fingerprinted it after the crime it would be a bit late dont you think??? kind of like closing the barn door after the horses get out.

Not at all, a ballistic fingerprint would only serve two real functions as near as I can tell, the first being identifying the murder weapon, and the second (assuming a file is kept as is suggested) being determining who owns an as of yet unfound murder (or assault, or whatever) weapon. In the first case it would be better to fingerprint afterwards anyway, thus providing a recent fingerprint. For the second purpose having such a comprehensive file would be useful, but (if we are to believe Jag) most crimes committed with a gun are done so with illegally owned weapons anyway, so the ballistic fingerprint file would be of little use.

quote:

yes you can, but even 2 weapons made by the same manufacturer are alot different. the headspacing could be off by .100 of an inch, there could be a microscopic scratch in one of the barrels from machining etc etc... stuff that would show up different.

My point exactly, and thus it would be relatively easy to change to ballistic fingerprint of a weapon by swapping the barrel and firing pin. Furthermore, I have to wonder if the fingerprint is based off of such fine details, what else can be done to disguise the fingerprint of a gun?

quote:

this part all depends on how vigorously the pursuing detectives are willing to investigate the crime. if its put out on the black market it had to get there from somewhere right??? someone had to have bought it... it can be traced... the resources available to some of the investigating agencies are more than most people think.

Perhaps, but this is still of limited usefulness.

quote:

The technique is sound enough that a number of Fraternal order of police leaders around the country are in favor of it. But I guess they are "gun control socialists" as well. Give me a break! Any tool that assist police in catching bad guys should be applauded, but once again the gun crazies show they lack brains as well as a conscience.

Oh? Well then we should scrap all that nonsense about the Fifth Amendment, and perhaps allow the use of torture during police interrogations, and any number of other delightful means we can think of to assist our poor, beleaguered, police officers catch the "bad guys".

quote:

Give them just a little peek into the door of gun registration, that's what it is by the way, and they will eventually go after them all.

Unfortunately true, and not just of gun control (after all, look at the way socialism is going in this country).

quote:

What group of people have you decided dies first? Gays, liberals, catholics, Jews, the rich. Who?

Liberals, it's called poetic justice.

quote:

Once you have gun control, the government goes out of control, that's history, it's a fact of life. Once the peoples only weapon of self defense is removed, they are helpless to stop any sort of barbarism.

I wouldn't say that guns are peoples only means of defense, but rather there last line of defense.

quote:

Yeah, I may be paranoid, but I have a clue of what happened in the past. The liberals have stood the constitution on it's head with all their socialist programs, they are more then willing and able to force any number of things on us once we are helpless. Including killing those that disagree with them.

Yea Jag, you're a paranoid gun crazy, but you also have a very good point. I think you exaggerate the probability of the government going out of control like that, and I'm not sure how much good hand guns and rifles would do anyway if such an occurrence were to happen, but there really is no point to taking needless risks like that.

[ 11-05-2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the tone of my statement whatever will assist police in catching bad guys indicated within reason and BF is reasonable. But by all means take up the cause of the poor downtrodden criminal being tortured by the police. That is so in line with your previously posted opinion on people less fortunate than yourself. Now you're a champion of the underclass! Unbelievable! I now think you may be quite mad. Even when someone who is a liberal steps outside of the box and sides with (yechh!) law enforcement a most decidely non liberal cause, you disagree out of pure reflex. How utterly sad and predictible

[ 11-05-2002, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Race Bannon IV ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballastic fingerprinting? Give me a break. Changing the ballastic fingerprint of my gun is easy and takes no time at all... I routinely swap barrels out my friend since with both have P229s, mine in .40 and his in .357. It's incredably easy to get a replacement barrel, firing pin, and extractor... hell, SigArms is a 15 minute drive from my house, and they'll ship replacement parts (though not whole handguns) straight from the factory to individuals.

The only thing Ballastic fingerprinting would accomplish is giving an acuse to register gun owners (since after all, it wouldn't make sense without registration). My gun will never be finger printed.

quote:

i even frequented the range twice a week, and i know i could have my .40 tested and the ballistic sig would have barely changed... and i figured to have put at least 20 boxes thru her.

20 boxes?? I put 7-10 boxes through on each visit to the range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballistic fingerprinting will do NOTHING about crime, it will do everything about registering firearms.

THAT IS THE POINT!!!

If you don't get it, it just show how emotional this issue is for you.

Think about the facts instead of these crazy jump on the bandwagon because it feels good crap.

Liberals, you can give them the facts, but you can't make them think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Your gun will be used in a crime, therefore we are going to fingerprint it.

Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?


Now that's not right.

You car has plates because it's going to be stolen, or you will commit a crime with it.

We take fingerprint of your childrens becasue they will be kidnapped.

We record the serial number of your bike in a database becasue it's going to be stolen.

We install an alarm system in the house because someone is going to break in.

Your computer has a firewall because someone will hack it.

Makes sense doesn't it? No. Ever heard of prevention? Better be safe than sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry EP5, but this is the US NOT canada.

We have a 2nd amendment right to firearms, also, driving a car is NOT a right, owning a car is NOT a right.

Everything that you stated above is either voluntary, fingerprinting of children, or a priviledge, oh that's right, you have whatever rights your government decides to tell you you have.

I on the other hand have a god given right to own guns, and the right to self defense.

Therefore, ballistic fingerprinting, which will not deter criminals, will allow the government to have a gun registration database. That is NOT allowable, PERIOD. What guns I own is NONE of the governments business, it is my RIGHT as a citizen to own guns, the government does NOT have the right to fingerprint them or anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am suited to the original constitution of the united states, whis is NOT a democracy.

here, let me use this to help explain it to you.

quote:

It's NOT a Democracy

by Joseph S. Bommarito

The public education system teaches that we live in a democracy, in which the government is ruled by the majority. The founders of the country were students of government and knew that democracy was essentially mob rule with a thin veneer of legality and that the democracies of history had failed. No self-respecting person of that era would call himself a democrat.

A pre-Revolutionary statement by an anonymous Bostonian reflected a common belief that it was better to be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away than by 3,000 tyrants a mile away. Historian Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote then that ÔÇ£A democracy . . . can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.ÔÇØ

If not by democracy, then how do former subjects of a monarchy ensure freedom? Alexander Hamilton wrote, "We are now forming a republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy . . . . If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

The Constitution therefore states, ÔÇ£The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . . .ÔÇØ

The Constitution is a framework for government that is purposefully difficult to amend. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government were designed to provide checks and balances on each other. An additional check on power was that the three parties to legislation were to serve different constituencies.

- The House of Representatives was intended to be the only representative body for the people, with members elected democratically from specific districts.

- Members of the Senate were appointed by their respective state legislatures.

- The office of president was decided by electors, of which each state had at least three. The vice-president was the presidential candidate who received the second largest number of votes, ensuring a balance of opinion in the executive branch.

This provided the foundation for a government of limited power whose principal obligation was to protect the rights and liberties of the people. This charter of power from the people was not intended to be changed easily or to be a ÔÇ£living document,ÔÇØ subject to the whim of the moment. After the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin, when asked what had been wrought, responded, ÔÇ£A republic, if you can keep it.ÔÇØ

But today we are continually subjected to chants of ÔÇ£our democracy,ÔÇØ ÔÇ£this is a democracy,ÔÇØ and ÔÇ£to restore our democracyÔÇØ by politicians who should know better, having sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

As early as the 1830ÔÇÖs, Alexis de Tocqueville noted how little Americans valued freedom as opposed to equality. He wrote, "Democratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy." Equality of condition, of position, of peace and comfort became more important than freedom for people to achieve what they could. The weeds of democracy had started springing up in the fields of freedom.

Democracy gained more in 1913 when the balance of legislative power was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for direct election of senators by the people. The Senate then represented the same constituencies as the House. Each presidential election now resounds with calls for the abandonment of the electoral system in favor of a popularly elected chief executive.

Democracy advanced further in 1913 (it was a very bad year) when the income tax amendment gave Congress the power to tax one class of citizen in order to enrich others. This also gave Congress the excuse to snoop into our personal business, the revenue to create new and ever-larger welfare-state programs, and the ability to become power-brokers and the chief grantors of favors.

The 1930ÔÇÖs saw President Franklin D. Roosevelt redefine freedom with his ÔÇ£Four FreedomsÔÇØ speech. Since then, people expect to have not only freedom of speech and religion, but also freedom from fear and from want, all provided by the government, of course, and paid for with other peoplesÔÇÖ money.

Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court, which then quickly approved programs previously considered unconstitutional. The Court now routinely finds hidden meaning within the plain language of the Constitution, often in the welfare clause. Constitutional architect James Madison had written, With respect to the words general welfare To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. But the Court routinely uses the welfare clause without regard to original intent.

Power-lusting politicians prostitute themselves by offering taxpayer-provided goodies to any group that delivers votes. The largest special interest group has become the fifty percent of income earners who pay virtually no tax but receive benefits paid for by the other fifty percent. As H. L. Mencken once observed, ÔÇ£. . . government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.ÔÇØ

The limited government envisioned by the founders guaranteed a maximum of individual freedom. But freedom can be messy, a little chaotic. The benefits of freedom often go to dissidents whose speech and acts may disrupt the tranquility of daily life. Consequently, people have lost the realization that freedom helps everyone in the long run, not to achieve some artificial level of equality, but to improve their conditions.

Democracy promises equality at the cost of freedom and everyone quickly reaps the benefits of equality. A law is passed and benefits flow as from a mountain spring. But the long-term cost will be loss of self-reliance and an increasing dependence on government.

The inherent vice of freedom is the unequal sharing of the blessings; the inherent blessing of equality will be the equal sharing of misery.

As long as people value equality over freedom and enrichment over enterprise, the shackles of dependence will grow ever tighter and we will return to a type of medieval serfdom with bureaucrats and politicians in place of nobles and kings.


There, now try again please, because maybe you need to live somewhere else, or else learn the constitution and your ACTUAL rights, instead of the ones you think you have and the ones you think that I DON'T have.

That's the difference, I KNOW MY RIGHTS, you think you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I think the tone of my statement whatever will assist police in catching bad guys indicated within reason and BF is reasonable.

Well darling, whatever the tone of you're argument might have been, it excessively exaggerated the importance of supporting the police and made no mention of civil liberty.

quote:

But by all means take up the cause of the poor downtrodden criminal being tortured by the police. That is so in line with your previously posted opinion on people less fortunate than yourself. Now you're a champion of the underclass! Unbelievable! I now think you may be quite mad.

Mad? Isn't that just a little bit much? And besides, I'm not suddenly looking out for the little guy, the little guy is so completely unimportant that it's not worth my time, but it's in nobodies best interest for us to have a police force that can ignore our constitutional rights.

quote:

Even when someone who is a liberal steps outside of the box and sides with (yechh!) law enforcement a most decidely non liberal cause, you disagree out of pure reflex. How utterly sad and predictible

So I assume that my obvious attempt at gathering information about this process prior to having an opinion is pure reflex and utterly sad? My apologies darling, but I see nothing reflexive in my rejection of a process which will be of limited value (whatever a couple of police may think), no doubt considerable expense, and potentially unconstitutional (and I'll let Jaguar argue the last point, that's his forte).

quote:

There, now try again please, because maybe you need to live somewhere else, or else learn the constitution and your ACTUAL rights, instead of the ones you think you have and the ones you think that I DON'T have.

Yep, I knew that, it's actually one of my biggest gripes with the way our government has been going for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

We have a 2nd amendment right to firearms

Oh, I suppose fingerprinting firearms will prevent you from using firearms?

This is the second post you make here with contents that doesn't make sense. I don't want to argue about gun control. And I think the fingerprinting concept is useless! I'm just pointing incoherences in your postings.

quote:

Your gun will be used in a crime, therefore we are going to fingerprint it.

NO, it's not that, it should be.

quote:

Your gun
could
be used in a crime, therefore we are going to fingerprint it.

And btw - car plates are not a privilege. If you ride your car without plates you will have trouble with police. So I suppose car plates are an infringement (spelling?) in your personal liberties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not getting it EP5. But, I didn't expect you to, you are Canadian.

Guns in the US are a right, NOT a priviledge.

Driving a car is a priviledge, NOT a right, therefore it can a will be regulated.

Owning a firearm in the US is a right, NOT a priviledge, therefore it CANNOT be regulated, no matter how much the states wish it were so.

The Supreme court, now that the Senate is controlled by republicans will get an actual judge who will look at the TRUE meaning of the constitution. ALL the gun control laws in this country have about 5 years left, they will be crumpled into ashes when a TRUE supreme court that will look at the founders TRUE intentions, instead of trying to legislate from the bench.

Ballistic fingerprinting of weapons is just another way for gun control advocates to get gun registration in place. Other then that it is useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

But, I didn't expect you to, you are Canadian.

I find this VERY insulting. When will you STOP talking about us as stupid and naive? I'm SICK of it. You are JEALOUS because our biggest problem in Canada are the stupid politicians, while in the us you have to deal with war, terrorists, corruption, crimes and a bad economy (due to the previously mentionned items).

Enough!

Congratulations. It's the first time ever I'm mad online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Your gun
could
be used in a crime, therefore we are going to fingerprint it.

And you could be a criminal therefore we should fingerprint you on a regular basis and take DNA samples. After all, statistically speaking you have a much higher chance of being a criminal than my gun does of being used in a crime.

After that we'll bring all your kitchen knives, fire place pokers, tools and other possible weapons to the lab and test them all out to record thier unique slash and bruise patterns, because they could all be used in a crime, too. And don't forget the chemical make up of the gasoline you get each time you stop at the service station needs to be recorded, because it could be used for arson.

And how are we going to pay for all this? Why you're going to pay of course, because we're hiking your taxes 500% and laying off police officers to cover the multi-million dollar expense of this project that has been used in Maryland for 2 years now to catch a grand total of ZERO offenders.

[ 11-06-2002, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

quote:

You are not getting it EP5. But, I didn't expect you to, you are Canadian.


ep5 has every right to be pissed off... jesus youre a friggin moderator for christs sake!!!!!!!!!! what you said is discriminatory... VERY

this topic has gotten to the point where i never intended it to go... i meant it to be a discussion about one thing, and it got sickly perverted into an insult fest...

therefore i move this topic be closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...