????????? (Don't understand the snippiness.)
No, I have never been a private guest of the man.
However, I have been a daily listener since the 1st Gulf War days. So, I can only go on what I have heard him say, and what the reports were at the time of the agreement he made to get those ridiculous charges dropped against him.
1)I have never heard him say diddly squat about him owning firearms. And to put it bluntly, it ain't none of our business.
2) I know that when he made his agreement in order to get those charges dropped, part of the announced agreement was that he would give up his right to own a firearm. Now a public announcement about that part of the agreement, had me going “WTH?” at the time. Announcing that seemed like unnecessary twaddle by that Florida prosecutor. “Ooooh! I'm protecting the citizens of Florida against this dangerous criminal by keeping him from owning a firearm.”
Now, I don't know how the law works in such matters, especially Florida law. I know that the terms of his agreement were that if he promised to be a good boy for 18 months, and pass his drug tests, the charges against him would be dropped. How that agreement would affect his gun ownership, I have no idea. Did he regain those rights after 18 months? I don't know, and except for the fact that I thought the whole thing was ridiculous. Rush was hardly a menace to society. Again, his gun ownership is his business; not mine. (I know that if was in his shoes, I would be demanding the return of that right, especially given who who Rush is. Whether he has done so or if he let it go, again it isn't my business.)
Now, Fawn, why you wanted to be snippy with me, I don't understand. All I can tell you is that I had no agenda, or ulterior motive behind my post. My intent was exactly what it was: a factual mentioning about Rush and his gun rights.
Have a good day!
(Sorry, but I left a part out the first time.)
> I guess you don’t know him very well....<
????????? (Don’t understand the snippiness.)
No, I have never been a private guest of the man.
However, I have been a daily listener since the 1st Gulf War days. So, I can only go on what I have heard him say, and what the reports were at the time of the agreement he made to get those ridiculous charges dropped against him.
1)I have never heard him say diddly squat about him owning firearms. And to put it bluntly, it ain’t none of our business.
2) I know that when he made his agreement in order to get those charges dropped, part of the announced agreement was that he would give up his right to own a firearm. Now a public announcement about that part of the agreement, had me going “WTH?” at the time. Announcing that seemed like unnecessary twaddle by that Florida prosecutor. “Ooooh! I’m protecting the citizens of Florida against this dangerous criminal by keeping him from owning a firearm.”
Now, I don’t know how the law works in such matters, especially Florida law. I know that the terms of his agreement were that if he promised to be a good boy for 18 months, and pass his drug tests, the charges against him would be dropped. How that agreement would affect his gun ownership, I have no idea. Did he regain those rights after 18 months? I don’t know, and except for the fact that I thought the whole thing was ridiculous, and that I am concerned with protecting any one’s right, my concern was limited. Rush was hardly a menace to society. Again, his gun ownership is his business; not mine. (I know that if was in his shoes, I would be demanding the return of that right, especially given who who Rush is. Whether he has done so or if he let it go, again, it isn’t my business.)
Now, Fawn, why you wanted to be snippy with me, I don’t understand. All I can tell you is that I had no agenda, or ulterior motive behind my post. My intent was exactly what it was: a factual mentioning about Rush and his gun rights.
Have a good day!