That's a good point and I think it's a great reason to have this discussion in this thread, so people are more likely to refrain from sharing their opinion when somebody joins the forum to ask if they can get a CHL if they have a juvenile record from the time they got caught robbing a liquor store at age 16.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not going to weigh in on this discussion other than to take the opportunity to point out that many people, especially new Members, come to TexasCHLforum for information, not lectures and condemnation about their past actions.
Chas.
Past Indiscretions
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: Past Indiscretions
The city is not a concrete jungle. It is a human zoo.
-
flechero
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 3486
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
- Location: Central Texas
Re: Past Indiscretions
Not to pick on anyone in particular, this was just the most recent post I copied from....
We all have broken the law, at some point in time... Good fortune in the past does not make a person "responsible" today. I did get caught when I was young, luckily it was something minor enough that is hasn't haunted me very often.
Sounds like this poster was just lucky and didn't get caught. He could very easily have been the "OP" in one of these threads.Hard for me to sympathize with those who have made "bad" choices.
I worked very hard my entire life to maintain my reputation. Many times I left the "party" early while I was sober enough ......
We all have broken the law, at some point in time... Good fortune in the past does not make a person "responsible" today. I did get caught when I was young, luckily it was something minor enough that is hasn't haunted me very often.
-
SewTexas
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
- Location: Alvin
- Contact:
Re: Past Indiscretions
this is the reason I am constantly saying on this board that we need to tell our children and all of those in our...."sphere of influence"?'....that what they do can follow them forever. choices can impact not just a CHL, but military enlistment, security clearance, job opportunities....and kids don't realize that, even the "good" kids.
and yes, I post this on my FB every few months.
and yes, I post this on my FB every few months.
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir
-
The Annoyed Man
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 26852
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
- Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
- Contact:
Re: Past Indiscretions
We are either a nation of laws, or of men. I would rather live under the former because it makes for a generally better society. In that light, I generally agree with the OP's sentiment. But........
That is not the perfect answer either. I am today a law-abiding citizen, and (occasionally mild exceeding of speed limits aside) haven't intentionally broken any laws in more than 25 years. But, until my mid 30s I was an off-and-on MORE than occasional recreational marijuana user, and I had a period toward the end of that time where I got pretty strung out on cocaine. Praise the Lord, I have been clean and sober since January of 1987.
Question 11 (e) on Form 4473 says:
Question 11 (c) says:
And yet, I submit that I am as responsible and trustworthy a citizen today as anyone who never did those things. I agree generally speaking with the sentiment "don't do the crime if you can't do the time," but I also think that when laws change in the direction of decriminalizing something, then all previous convictions for that thing ought to be re-adjudicated accordingly. Otherwise, those convicted have not received equal rights before the law compared to those charged more recently. If we followed this simple principle, we would A) be far less likely to change legal standards willy-nilly, and B) (and more importantly) we would be far less likely to criminalize things in the first place.
The problem is that we substitute law today for lack of character. We think that if we pass laws, people will obey them. But the truth is that if people had character and treated with one another accordingly, we wouldn't need laws in the first place. There are certain foundational moral standards that we all know—it's wrong to lie, steal, murder, etc.—and yet we pass laws about them in the mistaken belief that if it is proscribed by law, a person of low character won't do it. That is how we end up with tens of thousands of laws on the books that never get enforced because nobody even knows they exist. The world is full of people of low character, and so we pass laws to regulate their behavior, ignoring the fact that people of low character don't care about the law in the first place. In the end, the only thing all those laws do is to regulate the lives of people who don't need regulation—because they already know that it is inherently wrong to lie, steal, and murder, and they live their lives accordingly—and who nevertheless have to expend energy, time, and money (and worry) to make sure that they stay within the lines. This is exactly why gun-control laws don't work. Today, politicians pass laws to "send a message" without a single thought of who will be tasked with enforcing them, and so much of what passes for enforcement—at least at the federal level—has more to do with political ideology than with criminality. Eric Holder's Justice Department and BATFE will violate federal gun laws with impunity (Fast & Furious)—leading to the deaths of literally hundreds of foreign nationals—and hide behind executive privilege on the one hand, while with the other hand landing like a ton of bricks on some small FFL who gets sloppy with his books and adding additional reporting requirements on the purchases of law-abiding citizens simply because they live near a border. They release memos talking about sovereign citizen terrorists, while threatening to crush civil rights. They invite foreign election observers to monitor U.S. elections on the one hand, while ignoring New Black Panther voter intimidation on the other hand—even in the face of video proof—because of openly avowed racial solidarity with the intimidators.
When THAT kind of government is passing "laws," the law becomes a fuzzy hard to discern thing—where it should be an easily recognizable bright line. The question of a citizen's duty to obey those laws becomes fuzzier and less brightly defined too—NOT because that citizen is necessarily a person of bad character, but rather because it is either difficult to know what is legal and what isn't; or because the law is recognizably unjust, and justice demands disobedience. What do we call it when a sworn and licensed chief LEO—like several sheriffs around the country have done recently—publicly announces that he or she will NOT be enforcing federal laws which he or she deems to be unconstitutional or unjust? The sheriff may be protecting the rights of the citizens in his jurisdiction, but he IS choosing to selectively enforce the law..........JUST LIKE ERIC HOLDER DOES.
So on one hand we have a principle of being law abiding, and of making good choices; but on the other hand we have bad law and selective enforcement. So I find that things are no longer that simple anymore. They were a lot simpler 50 years ago, but not so much anymore.
That is not the perfect answer either. I am today a law-abiding citizen, and (occasionally mild exceeding of speed limits aside) haven't intentionally broken any laws in more than 25 years. But, until my mid 30s I was an off-and-on MORE than occasional recreational marijuana user, and I had a period toward the end of that time where I got pretty strung out on cocaine. Praise the Lord, I have been clean and sober since January of 1987.
Question 11 (e) on Form 4473 says:
When I answer that question today, I answer it truthfully. It doesn't say "Have you ever." What is says is "Are you." There was a time (before I became a gun owner) when I could not have truthfully answered that question. That was also a time in my life when I had no more interest in understanding the Constitution than any other leftist. Like I said, PTL for sobriety.Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Question 11 (c) says:
The difference between me and someone who cannot answer that one in the negative is that I was never caught. Back when I started smoking pot in the latter half of the 1960s, possession of a 1 oz bag of weed was a felony charge.....and that was in Commiefornia of all places. My how times have changed. If I had been caught in possession of a 1 oz bag of weed back then, I would have been ineligible today to keep and bear arms. If I were caught with the same amount of weed today, I might not even have a conviction on my record. And if I had been caught back in the 1960s and gotten a felony conviction, that felony conviction would still be on my record today even though it would not be a felony charge today.Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?
And yet, I submit that I am as responsible and trustworthy a citizen today as anyone who never did those things. I agree generally speaking with the sentiment "don't do the crime if you can't do the time," but I also think that when laws change in the direction of decriminalizing something, then all previous convictions for that thing ought to be re-adjudicated accordingly. Otherwise, those convicted have not received equal rights before the law compared to those charged more recently. If we followed this simple principle, we would A) be far less likely to change legal standards willy-nilly, and B) (and more importantly) we would be far less likely to criminalize things in the first place.
The problem is that we substitute law today for lack of character. We think that if we pass laws, people will obey them. But the truth is that if people had character and treated with one another accordingly, we wouldn't need laws in the first place. There are certain foundational moral standards that we all know—it's wrong to lie, steal, murder, etc.—and yet we pass laws about them in the mistaken belief that if it is proscribed by law, a person of low character won't do it. That is how we end up with tens of thousands of laws on the books that never get enforced because nobody even knows they exist. The world is full of people of low character, and so we pass laws to regulate their behavior, ignoring the fact that people of low character don't care about the law in the first place. In the end, the only thing all those laws do is to regulate the lives of people who don't need regulation—because they already know that it is inherently wrong to lie, steal, and murder, and they live their lives accordingly—and who nevertheless have to expend energy, time, and money (and worry) to make sure that they stay within the lines. This is exactly why gun-control laws don't work. Today, politicians pass laws to "send a message" without a single thought of who will be tasked with enforcing them, and so much of what passes for enforcement—at least at the federal level—has more to do with political ideology than with criminality. Eric Holder's Justice Department and BATFE will violate federal gun laws with impunity (Fast & Furious)—leading to the deaths of literally hundreds of foreign nationals—and hide behind executive privilege on the one hand, while with the other hand landing like a ton of bricks on some small FFL who gets sloppy with his books and adding additional reporting requirements on the purchases of law-abiding citizens simply because they live near a border. They release memos talking about sovereign citizen terrorists, while threatening to crush civil rights. They invite foreign election observers to monitor U.S. elections on the one hand, while ignoring New Black Panther voter intimidation on the other hand—even in the face of video proof—because of openly avowed racial solidarity with the intimidators.
When THAT kind of government is passing "laws," the law becomes a fuzzy hard to discern thing—where it should be an easily recognizable bright line. The question of a citizen's duty to obey those laws becomes fuzzier and less brightly defined too—NOT because that citizen is necessarily a person of bad character, but rather because it is either difficult to know what is legal and what isn't; or because the law is recognizably unjust, and justice demands disobedience. What do we call it when a sworn and licensed chief LEO—like several sheriffs around the country have done recently—publicly announces that he or she will NOT be enforcing federal laws which he or she deems to be unconstitutional or unjust? The sheriff may be protecting the rights of the citizens in his jurisdiction, but he IS choosing to selectively enforce the law..........JUST LIKE ERIC HOLDER DOES.
So on one hand we have a principle of being law abiding, and of making good choices; but on the other hand we have bad law and selective enforcement. So I find that things are no longer that simple anymore. They were a lot simpler 50 years ago, but not so much anymore.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
-
JALLEN
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 3081
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
- Location: Comal County
Re: Past Indiscretions
There seems to be a certain aspect of survival of the fittest at work in these matters.
It is astonishing to realize how many young people have a record these days, a "rap sheet." It is also astonishing to think how one can live a full, productive, entertaining life and never do anything criminal, even be arrested, let alone convicted of anything. It isn't that hard to do, folks!
One of the worst regressions of our culture is the development of the credit report, credit score. Since everyone has one, and so many decisions are made based on it, that is where the cheating is concentrated. A credit report is supposed to give a potential creditor some insight into how responsibly the subject of the report has behaved in the past. Therefore, it is of critical importance that episodes of irresponsibility be omitted or camouflaged to deflect that insight, and all necessary efforts are made, not to mend one's ways, but to arrange matters so the negatives don't appear.
Some years ago, a man who had been a tenant in our office building came up to me on the street, very glad to see me. This man is wealthy, one of the wealthiest men I know. The reason he was glad to see me was he wanted some advice about a situation involving his son who had bought a very expensive home in an exclusive enclave, which had declined in value to below what the loan amount was, "underwater" in the now ordinary patois.
The question was, "How could he get out of that without damaging his credit?" The son couldn't see paying the loan for a house that wasn't worth what he had borrowed let alone what he had paid for it. He didn't want to be a sucker! It was a lot of money but this man could have written a check on the spot for it and never noticed it.
I like the analogy to the open and closing doors. One of my law school class mates just got out of jail for embezzling over $100,000 from a client. A lot of doors ought to have slammed shut over that one, but if he lives that long, he probably can be re-admitted after 5 years or so, like the former President of the County Bar here whose term in office was abruptly terminated after about 60 days when he was arrested for fencing stolen property. His kid was on the Little League team I was coaching back then. The former President went to jail, but is now back practicing, like it never even happened! Part of the penalty should be never practice law again. This is nuts, men.
One of the inducements to avoid criminal behavior is that it will haunt you forever. This is right. Doors close..... that's it! Someone whose judgment and conduct is so flawed ought not be entrusted to the same extent as law-abiding citizens. Do we want to encourage "mulligans?" Felons should not vote, or carry weapons, or be licensed to carry on professions requiring "good moral character."
Just my opinion, of course, but it is what it is.
It is astonishing to realize how many young people have a record these days, a "rap sheet." It is also astonishing to think how one can live a full, productive, entertaining life and never do anything criminal, even be arrested, let alone convicted of anything. It isn't that hard to do, folks!
One of the worst regressions of our culture is the development of the credit report, credit score. Since everyone has one, and so many decisions are made based on it, that is where the cheating is concentrated. A credit report is supposed to give a potential creditor some insight into how responsibly the subject of the report has behaved in the past. Therefore, it is of critical importance that episodes of irresponsibility be omitted or camouflaged to deflect that insight, and all necessary efforts are made, not to mend one's ways, but to arrange matters so the negatives don't appear.
Some years ago, a man who had been a tenant in our office building came up to me on the street, very glad to see me. This man is wealthy, one of the wealthiest men I know. The reason he was glad to see me was he wanted some advice about a situation involving his son who had bought a very expensive home in an exclusive enclave, which had declined in value to below what the loan amount was, "underwater" in the now ordinary patois.
The question was, "How could he get out of that without damaging his credit?" The son couldn't see paying the loan for a house that wasn't worth what he had borrowed let alone what he had paid for it. He didn't want to be a sucker! It was a lot of money but this man could have written a check on the spot for it and never noticed it.
I like the analogy to the open and closing doors. One of my law school class mates just got out of jail for embezzling over $100,000 from a client. A lot of doors ought to have slammed shut over that one, but if he lives that long, he probably can be re-admitted after 5 years or so, like the former President of the County Bar here whose term in office was abruptly terminated after about 60 days when he was arrested for fencing stolen property. His kid was on the Little League team I was coaching back then. The former President went to jail, but is now back practicing, like it never even happened! Part of the penalty should be never practice law again. This is nuts, men.
One of the inducements to avoid criminal behavior is that it will haunt you forever. This is right. Doors close..... that's it! Someone whose judgment and conduct is so flawed ought not be entrusted to the same extent as law-abiding citizens. Do we want to encourage "mulligans?" Felons should not vote, or carry weapons, or be licensed to carry on professions requiring "good moral character."
Just my opinion, of course, but it is what it is.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
-
nightmare
- Deactivated until real name is provided
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:09 pm
Re: Past Indiscretions
Veteran status gives us a CHL discount. That doesn't roll off after 10 years. So, it seems fair that convicted felon status, which disqualifies someone from getting a CHL, should also not roll off after 10 years.
Equo ne credite, Teucri. Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
-
jmra
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 9
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Past Indiscretions
Nope, luck had nothing to do with it. I simply did not allow myself to be put in situations that would have allowed me to become the OP of one of these threads.flechero wrote:Not to pick on anyone in particular, this was just the most recent post I copied from....
Sounds like this poster was just lucky and didn't get caught. He could very easily have been the "OP" in one of these threads.Hard for me to sympathize with those who have made "bad" choices.
I worked very hard my entire life to maintain my reputation. Many times I left the "party" early while I was sober enough ......
We all have broken the law, at some point in time... Good fortune in the past does not make a person "responsible" today. I did get caught when I was young, luckily it was something minor enough that is hasn't haunted me very often.
People act like they have no control over what happens to them. Well I'm here to tell you that it is not physically possible to get into a bar fight if you don't go to bars.
We may not always be able to control the things that happen around us but we can always control how we choose to react to those things. The OPs of these threads weren't unlucky, they simply decided to make poor choices.
I might add that I had another motivating factor in keeping my nose clean. My father has been a minister my entire life. I knew throughout my childhood and as a young adult that my behavior would impact how people perceived not only me but also my father. My father not only pastored a church but also worked several other jobs in order to support our family. I had the upmost respect for him and would never have done anything to dishonor him.
The "sober enough" comment was not a specific reference to alcohol (as i rarely drank) but rather a reference to my thought process and mindset.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
-
gigag04
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 5474
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Past Indiscretions
Yes people can change and learn from mistakes.
Drunk driving, marijuana usage, things of this nature I could understand someone doing and moving on and learning from.
Burglary of a habitation, and up, I don't give that same latitude. Sure they still may learn from it, but my ever important opinion as a stranger on the Internet will be tainted.
Drunk driving, marijuana usage, things of this nature I could understand someone doing and moving on and learning from.
Burglary of a habitation, and up, I don't give that same latitude. Sure they still may learn from it, but my ever important opinion as a stranger on the Internet will be tainted.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
-
Jumping Frog
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 5488
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
- Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)
Re: Past Indiscretions
I'd also like to point out that computer databases have really changed the equation for everyone.
We used to live in a country 100 years ago where if a kid got into trouble in his hometown, say Atlanta, he could pick up his life and move to Houston, or Los Angeles, or Montana -- anywhere else -- and get a fresh start on life. Even as recently as 1960 or so, you could move somewhere and not have all your troubles follow you.
Now, I am generally talking about the kind of youthful indiscretions where it used to be the hometown judge would give a young man a choice, go to jail or join the Army (that has also changed). I am not talking about bank robbery or murder, serious stuff.
America used to be the land of opportunity, and a fresh start on life was part of its promise.
All that has gone away. The digital fingerprint that everyone carries today is enormous.
We used to live in a country 100 years ago where if a kid got into trouble in his hometown, say Atlanta, he could pick up his life and move to Houston, or Los Angeles, or Montana -- anywhere else -- and get a fresh start on life. Even as recently as 1960 or so, you could move somewhere and not have all your troubles follow you.
Now, I am generally talking about the kind of youthful indiscretions where it used to be the hometown judge would give a young man a choice, go to jail or join the Army (that has also changed). I am not talking about bank robbery or murder, serious stuff.
America used to be the land of opportunity, and a fresh start on life was part of its promise.
All that has gone away. The digital fingerprint that everyone carries today is enormous.
-Just call me Bob . . . Texas Firearms Coalition, NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, and OFCC Patron member
This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
-
flechero
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 3486
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
- Location: Central Texas
Re: Past Indiscretions
Great example, glad you picked it! I actually was pulled into a bar fight that started outside the bar. (I was simply a pedestrian leaving a restaurant) Through nothing but poor timing, there I was. If it weren't for my good fortune of some witnesses that stuck around, I might not have walked away free that night.jmra wrote:Nope, luck had nothing to do with it. I simply did not allow myself to be put in situations that would have allowed me to become the OP of one of these threads.flechero wrote:Not to pick on anyone in particular, this was just the most recent post I copied from....
Sounds like this poster was just lucky and didn't get caught. He could very easily have been the "OP" in one of these threads.Hard for me to sympathize with those who have made "bad" choices.
I worked very hard my entire life to maintain my reputation. Many times I left the "party" early while I was sober enough ......
We all have broken the law, at some point in time... Good fortune in the past does not make a person "responsible" today. I did get caught when I was young, luckily it was something minor enough that is hasn't haunted me very often.
People act like they have no control over what happens to them. Well I'm here to tell you that it is not physically possible to get into a bar fight if you don't go to bars.
We may not always be able to control the things that happen around us but we can always control how we choose to react to those things. The OPs of these threads weren't unlucky, they simply decided to make poor choices.
I might add that I had another motivating factor in keeping my nose clean. My father has been a minister my entire life. I knew throughout my childhood and as a young adult that my behavior would impact how people perceived not only me but also my father. My father not only pastored a church but also worked several other jobs in order to support our family. I had the upmost respect for him and would never have done anything to dishonor him.
The "sober enough" comment was not a specific reference to alcohol (as i rarely drank) but rather a reference to my thought process and mindset.
As the son of a Minister, then you know the point I was trying to make- there was only One perfect man.
I'm not excusing anything, just saying that we have all gotten away with some stuff... be it minor or major. You even admitted drinking, therefore "risking your father's honor". If you had been caught through "poor timing" like me in the bar fight (or police called in response to someone else) you might be on the other side of this argument.
my point was simply that we have all made mistakes- and I'm not talking the "big stuff". Ever had a beer or 2 and then drive home, break traffic laws, etc?
I wasn't looking to single you out- you just happened to be the poster closest to me as I copied an example.
-
Redwood Lenny
- Junior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:12 pm
Re: Past Indiscretions
jmra wrote:Hard for me to sympathize with those who have made "bad" choices.
I worked very hard my entire life to maintain my reputation. Many times I left the "party" early while I was sober enough and smart enough to know where things were headed. Others made the decision to stay and they paid for it.
I was willing to sacrifice instant gratification in order to ensure that one day my past didn't bite me in the hindquarters.
The worst encounter I have ever had with the police was a speeding ticket almost 30 years ago.
Does that make me better than anyone else now? No. But it does allow me to enjoy things now that those other guys are denied. Simply put, you reap what you sow. I do believe in Mercy but we are all subject to the laws of God, the laws of nature, and the laws of man.
So, if you had to have it then and would do whatever you had to do to have it; you may just have to do without now.
-
jmra
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 9
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Past Indiscretions
This line of thinking disturbs me greatly. I am tired of the "everybody does it" mentality. The fact is responsible people (including teenagers) don't.flechero wrote:Great example, glad you picked it! I actually was pulled into a bar fight that started outside the bar. (I was simply a pedestrian leaving a restaurant) Through nothing but poor timing, there I was. If it weren't for my good fortune of some witnesses that stuck around, I might not have walked away free that night.jmra wrote:Nope, luck had nothing to do with it. I simply did not allow myself to be put in situations that would have allowed me to become the OP of one of these threads.flechero wrote:Not to pick on anyone in particular, this was just the most recent post I copied from....
Sounds like this poster was just lucky and didn't get caught. He could very easily have been the "OP" in one of these threads.Hard for me to sympathize with those who have made "bad" choices.
I worked very hard my entire life to maintain my reputation. Many times I left the "party" early while I was sober enough ......
We all have broken the law, at some point in time... Good fortune in the past does not make a person "responsible" today. I did get caught when I was young, luckily it was something minor enough that is hasn't haunted me very often.
People act like they have no control over what happens to them. Well I'm here to tell you that it is not physically possible to get into a bar fight if you don't go to bars.
We may not always be able to control the things that happen around us but we can always control how we choose to react to those things. The OPs of these threads weren't unlucky, they simply decided to make poor choices.
I might add that I had another motivating factor in keeping my nose clean. My father has been a minister my entire life. I knew throughout my childhood and as a young adult that my behavior would impact how people perceived not only me but also my father. My father not only pastored a church but also worked several other jobs in order to support our family. I had the upmost respect for him and would never have done anything to dishonor him.
The "sober enough" comment was not a specific reference to alcohol (as i rarely drank) but rather a reference to my thought process and mindset.
I have not lifted a hand in anger to anyone since grade school.
Ever had a beer or 2 and then drive home
No
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
-
alvins
Re: Past Indiscretions
you guys sound like a buncha old people sitting around complaining about how it should be rather then how it is.lol
-
jmra
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 9
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Past Indiscretions
So you are suggesting that a criminal record is the norm?alvins wrote:you guys sound like a buncha old people sitting around complaining about how it should be rather then how it is.lol
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
Re: Past Indiscretions
Yes, as we age we grow more perfect in every way, until finally one day we are perfect, ah, except for the stuff we did in the past, but we won't talk about that...shush...