G ganjavih Guest Jan 5, 2006 #31 Believe it or not, drunknsubmrnr, but there are countless things that we are not allowed to own despite it being a free country. So by simply saying it's a free country, you make a very weak argument.
Believe it or not, drunknsubmrnr, but there are countless things that we are not allowed to own despite it being a free country. So by simply saying it's a free country, you make a very weak argument.
D drunknsubmrnr Guest Jan 7, 2006 #32 Believe it or not, drunknsubmrnr, but there are countless things that we are not allowed to own despite it being a free country. Click to expand... For every one of those thing, there has to be an over-riding reason for the courts to allow it. I haven't seen that in this case.
Believe it or not, drunknsubmrnr, but there are countless things that we are not allowed to own despite it being a free country. Click to expand... For every one of those thing, there has to be an over-riding reason for the courts to allow it. I haven't seen that in this case.
R rbtaylor Guest Jan 7, 2006 #33 As of 1997 ... From June 2003 to June 2004 Click to expand... What happened between 1997 and 2003? The primary trend in this case is far more important than the impact from a secondary trend.
As of 1997 ... From June 2003 to June 2004 Click to expand... What happened between 1997 and 2003? The primary trend in this case is far more important than the impact from a secondary trend.
