• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Uncooperative Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

400 posts in this topic

 

 

 

Its the exact sort of gun that Miller would have chosen for his militia service......

 

 

 

Let's be careful not to mis-quote this case . The Miller ruling doesn't fully endorse what you and Tom suggest.

The Miller decidion does not guarantee an AW for every man jack out there.

 

Miller Summary, Cornell University Law School

--The (Heller) majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose.

--Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment.

--Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

In context, this is where this talking point got started. Judge Cummings' 1990's Emerson case drew narrowly on Miller, which worked for Ashcroft.

Ashcroft was so enthusiastic he sent a letter.

The bolded statements it contained, below, are weak claims, at best.

 

Ashcroft's letter to ILA, 2001

To: Mr. James Jay Baker

Executive Director, National Rifle Assn

Institute for Legislative Action

11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfaz VA

While some have argued the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise.

(…)Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view comports with all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. (Fed. 46 and 29) Go read them, folks, they just aren't about individual gun rights

(…)As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the FOPA.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ashapa.htm

Note: David Hardy was the driving force of the scholarship behind FOPA. His FOPA memoirs were published by a Libertarian think tank here.

http://armsandthelaw.com/gunlaw/FOPA/>

They are concisely de-bunked here.

Deconstructing John Ashcroft's Second Amendment

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ashbody.htm>

A progression of legal developments occurred in the years after Miller.

Here's the actual outcome, in a quote directly from Heller.

United States v. Miller,307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Judge Cummings is still around today, but Cummings decisions have gained nuances ignored by Tom and the Simple One.

 

 

The NRA's biggest problem, though, was that Judge Cummings was careful to read the Supreme Court's Heller opinion and understand that it does nothing to support the gun lobby's constitutional extremism. Much to the NRA's chagrin, Judge Cummings emphasized that the right recognized in Heller was, in his words "quite narrow," <http://www.huffingto..._b_1241559.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal - direct question: Was Miller a member in an organized militia per your reading of the 2nd Amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal - direct question: Was Miller a member in an organized militia per your reading of the 2nd Amendment?

 

He won't answer but I will. Of course he wasn't. Nor was Dred Scott, but that didn't stop Justice Taney from thinking that he'd have a right to carry arms if he were a citizen.

 

I'm still wondering how the NRA reached back in time to get that idea into Taney's head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I finally found a pic of Jocal:

 

gnmzde-olmayan-8-enteresan-meslek-1_zpsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jocal - direct question: Was Miller a member in an organized militia per your reading of the 2nd Amendment?

 

He won't answer but I will. Of course he wasn't. Nor was Dred Scott, but that didn't stop Justice Taney from thinking that he'd have a right to carry arms if he were a citizen.

 

I'm still wondering how the NRA reached back in time to get that idea into Taney's head.

 

 

Here's my answer.

If Mr. Miller existed today in California, Connecticut, New York, or HIghland Park, Illinois, it wouldn't matter if he were enrolled in a militia, or not.

And he could show up for your chuldish fantasy, "militia duty:, with a Swiss Amy knife for all I care.

Swamp gas has you up early, waxing in grand hyperbole, as you mis-quote the Miller decision.

It just didn't grant any sweeping assault weapons rights. AW restrictions are constitutional as we speak.

 

Furthermore, you are twice false here. The Miller case defined strict requirements for the militia it proposed and considered.

Below is a snippet from the Miller decision. This VVV isn't the loosey-goosey militia you have in mind, eh?

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening's Statutes) declared,

The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia, and directed that "All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions, "shall be inrolled or formed into companies." "There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months."

Pasted from <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Jocal - direct question: Was Miller a member in an organized militia per your reading of the 2nd Amendment?

 

He won't answer but I will. Of course he wasn't. Nor was Dred Scott, but that didn't stop Justice Taney from thinking that he'd have a right to carry arms if he were a citizen.

 

I'm still wondering how the NRA reached back in time to get that idea into Taney's head.

 

 

Here's my answer.

If Mr. Miller existed today in California, Connecticut, New York, or HIghland Park, Illinois, it wouldn't matter if he were enrolled in a militia, or not.

And he could show up for your chuldish fantasy, "militia duty:, with a Swiss Amy knife for all I care.

Swamp gas has you up early, wAxinggrandiose in hyperbole, as you mis-quot the Miller decision.

It just didn't grant any sweeping assault weapons rights. AW restrictions are constitutional as we speak.

 

 

Not the mean looking weapons ban in the topic post.

 

NY already tried to ban most semi-auto's by banning magazines holding more than seven rounds as part of their mean-looking weapons ban. That was thrown out as unconstitutional because you can't ban most guns that are in common use.

 

Refer to the proposal. They're proposing the same limit that was already ruled unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think he has a suppressor on his assault weapon?

 

Fruit Loops on yer brain. I can't believe what occupies your bandwidth.

Reading MLK would add some texture to your belief system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Jocal - direct question: Was Miller a member in an organized militia per your reading of the 2nd Amendment?

 

He won't answer but I will. Of course he wasn't. Nor was Dred Scott, but that didn't stop Justice Taney from thinking that he'd have a right to carry arms if he were a citizen.

 

I'm still wondering how the NRA reached back in time to get that idea into Taney's head.

 

 

Here's my answer.

If Mr. Miller existed today in California, Connecticut, New York, or HIghland Park, Illinois, it wouldn't matter if he were enrolled in a militia, or not.

And he could show up for your chuldish fantasy, "militia duty:, with a Swiss Amy knife for all I care.

Swamp gas has you up early, wAxinggrandiose in hyperbole, as you mis-quot the Miller decision.

It just didn't grant any sweeping assault weapons rights. AW restrictions are constitutional as we speak.

 

 

Not the mean looking weapons ban in the topic post.

 

NY already tried to ban most semi-auto's by banning magazines holding more than seven rounds as part of their mean-looking weapons ban. That was thrown out as unconstitutional because you can't ban most guns that are in common use.

 

Refer to the proposal. They're proposing the same limit that was already ruled unconstitutional.

 

 

You keep flicking to the seven rounds bit. I think you have weak content, and that you need to direct the conversation to your own tired bits.

Yo dude, they were not-so-clever three years ago.

 

To upgrade the conversation, how about a Pooplius Overview of the following developments.

NOTICE A PATTERN?

 

 

the adventures of tom ray's elk:

WHOOPS, MY recent Court failures by Alan Gura

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=152016&p=5434073

Example One. Peruta vs San Diego upheld by circuit court

re: sorry, you must demonstrate a need for CCP

Note: Tom's lofty English laws were quoted, definitively.

The outdoor militias can march up and down the hall. LMFAO.

Example Two. SC refuses to allow legal gunplay out of doors

Drake vs. Jejerian

Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.

<http://www.scotusblo...ake-v-jerejian/>

Example 3. Heller III vs DC

re: the right of the government to engage in the practice and policy of regulating guns.

Note: registration of handguns and AW's was upheld, to include mandatory fingerprinting of permit holders, a 3 yr renewal period, mandatory gun safety training for applicant, and applicant must come to LE station in person, with precious.

Quote

He’s Ba-ack. Dick Heller And the NRA Come Up Short In Court.

http://mikethegunguy...short-in-court/

Example 4. CT and NY restrictions of AW's and LCM's upheld:

Re: constitutionality of AW restrictions

Quote

Supreme Court Won't Consider Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban

http://www.nbcnews.c...apons-ban-n595576>

Example 5. Highland Park.Re:The SC refused to hear a major, extended Alan Gura case about a key AW ban.

Quote

Appeals court upholds Highland Park assault weapons ban

http://www.chicagotr...0427-story.html>

Example 6: CA AW Ban upheld

As predicted by Tom "Bang Bang" Ray, this registry has closed. The date to legally register existing weapons in Cakifornia has come and gone.

Example 7:Jackson vs SF

re: Contrary to Heller stipulations, SC does not challenge mandatory safe gun storage indoors in SF.

Quote

Supreme Court declines to hear Second Amendment case over dissent of two justices

http://www.washingto...ent-case-over-dissent-of-two-justices/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, this thread needs confiscation rhetoric. And pics. I 'm here to help

.Gun%20Grabber%20Boogallo%20II_zps4jadkbn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

He won't answer but I will. Of course he wasn't. Nor was Dred Scott, but that didn't stop Justice Taney from thinking that he'd have a right to carry arms if he were a citizen.

 

I'm still wondering how the NRA reached back in time to get that idea into Taney's head.

Here's my answer.

If Mr. Miller existed today in California, Connecticut, New York, or HIghland Park, Illinois, it wouldn't matter if he were enrolled in a militia, or not.

And he could show up for your chuldish fantasy, "militia duty:, with a Swiss Amy knife for all I care.

Swamp gas has you up early, wAxinggrandiose in hyperbole, as you mis-quot the Miller decision.

It just didn't grant any sweeping assault weapons rights. AW restrictions are constitutional as we speak.

 

Not the mean looking weapons ban in the topic post.

 

NY already tried to ban most semi-auto's by banning magazines holding more than seven rounds as part of their mean-looking weapons ban. That was thrown out as unconstitutional because you can't ban most guns that are in common use.

 

Refer to the proposal. They're proposing the same limit that was already ruled unconstitutional.

 

You keep flicking to the seven rounds bit. I think you have weak content,...

 

 

No, I have the text of the proposal:

 

(d) “Large capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 7 rounds

 

That "AW restriction" is unconstitutional as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You keep flicking to the seven rounds bit. I think you have weak content,...

 

 

No, I have the text of the proposal:

 

(d) “Large capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 7 rounds

 

That "AW restriction" is unconstitutional as we speak.

 

 

I'm with another poster, who suggested you may not have the right stuff for a discussion of the constitution.

I don't care for how and when you use the word "unconstitutional."

 

If I understand your use correctly, you engage in some seriously unconstitutional behavior.

 

Oh yeah, here's your flip but unconstitutional reply about the felony which you proposed on the Iron Pipeline:

 

Tom Ray Posted 15 November 2016 - 02:38 AM

You don't get it. It's precisely because registration/confiscation plans make life easier for gungrabbers that I won't cooperate with them.

We saw what cooperation got CA residents: "Remember that magazine we said you could keep if you just register it? Yeah, that one. Hand it over. Now."

The people who didn't cooperate with registration/confiscation were smart. They knew gungrabbers lie about their intentions and this day was coming. And they'll get to keep their arms.

From <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=178271&p=5527035>

 

 

Personally, I think you distort the bill of rights, and spin the constitution, and that you erode what it takes to make a country strong.

And I very seriously question why you never quote the Libertarian and CATO brands as your platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe CATO Tom will be my next screen name, but for the next month I hope this one makes you puke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe CATO Tom will be my next screen name, but for the next month I hope this one makes you puke.

 

I would suggest "Scary Black" or "Evil Black" Tom for the next one given that jocal and so many others shit themselves at the thought of rifles of color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit too deplorable even for me, JBSF.

 

But maybe Black .22lr Tom?

 

Not sure I really want to name myself after my wife's assault rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit too deplorable even for me, JBSF.

 

But maybe Black .22lr Tom?

 

Not sure I really want to name myself after my wife's assault rifle.

 

If you're going to use "mean looking" as your handle, you need your mean-looking cow dog as your avatar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think he has a suppressor on his assault weapon?

 

Definitely, that's a twofer in terms of scariness!

 

gnmzde-olmayan-8-enteresan-meslek-1_zpsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe CATO Tom will be my next screen name, but for the next month I hope this one makes you puke.

 

I would suggest "Scary Black" or "Evil Black" Tom for the next one given that jocal and so many others shit themselves at the thought of rifles of color.

 

 

Look to the DNA for identification.

These assault weapons are what they are: the apex of the evolution of handheld killing machines.

The looks speak for the weapon, but the looks are inconsequential. You cannot make this into an issue of looks.

Such an effort shows pathos.

 

You are masterbating over a big problem. The nature of assault weapons. Carrry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe CATO Tom will be my next screen name, but for the next month I hope this one makes you puke.

 

I would suggest "Scary Black" or "Evil Black" Tom for the next one given that jocal and so many others shit themselves at the thought of rifles of color.

 

 

Look to the DNA for identification.

These assault weapons are what they are: the apex of the evolution of handheld killing machines.

...

 

LMAO. Hang on. I've gotta go take a pic of my dad's old gun to go with this description.

 

Strange that armies around the world have missed out on the apex and you almost never see a soldier carrying an old .22 with a fixed tube magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe CATO Tom will be my next screen name, but for the next month I hope this one makes you puke.

 

I would suggest "Scary Black" or "Evil Black" Tom for the next one given that jocal and so many others shit themselves at the thought of rifles of color.

 

 

Look to the DNA for identification.

These assault weapons are what they are: the apex of the evolution of handheld killing machines.

...

 

LMAO. Hang on. I've gotta go take a pic of my dad's old gun to go with this description.

 

Strange that armies around the world have missed out on the apex and you almost never see a soldier carrying an old .22 with a fixed tube magazine.

 

 

Tom has this little hangup, starts the Pavlov drool response when he hears "Assault Weapon"

 

of course, it doesn't matter. What matters is the list of guns that didn't receive their due process and ended up on the do-not-sell list. Should guns have the right to vote?

 

Gun Rights Matter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've explained to you before, each mean-looking weapons ban has two lists:

 

1. The list of guns that are banned by name.

 

2. The list of scary characteristics that define a gun to be banned.

 

In the case of the topic ban, my father's old .22 with fixed tube magazine falls under the definition of "assault weapons" and is thus subject to the ban.

 

I have in mind leaving it to my grandson. I don't see why that should be banned and don't see what's soooo darn scary about an old .22 with a fixed magazine.

 

It's just proof that despite the two significant lists in the various bans that have been proposed and enacted, the true definition of "assault weapon" is "something that goes bang and that Democrats want to ban."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've explained to you before, each mean-looking weapons ban has two lists:

 

1. The list of guns that are banned by name.

 

2. The list of scary characteristics that define a gun to be banned.

 

In the case of the topic ban, my father's old .22 with fixed tube magazine falls under the definition of "assault weapons" and is thus subject to the ban.

 

I have in mind leaving it to my grandson. I don't see why that should be banned and don't see what's soooo darn scary about an old .22 with a fixed magazine.

 

It's just proof that despite the two significant lists in the various bans that have been proposed and enacted, the true definition of "assault weapon" is "something that goes bang and that Democrats want to ban."

 

guns need the right to due process!

 

Why don't guns have rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, when what Democrats want to do is indefensible it's best to resort to just posting nonsense if you're tired of personal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, when what Democrats want to do is indefensible it's best to resort to just posting nonsense if you're tired of personal attacks.

Newsflash to Tom. No one cares about grandpas .22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, when what Democrats want to do is indefensible it's best to resort to just posting nonsense if you're tired of personal attacks.

Newsflash to Tom. No one cares about grandpas .22

 

 

I wish that were true but we have elected Democrats up in Tallahassee who care enough to propose banning it with this part of one of the lists:

 

d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could transform the Talahasee debacle with a mighty crusasde on our forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, when what Democrats want to do is indefensible it's best to resort to just posting nonsense if you're tired of personal attacks.

Newsflash to Tom. No one cares about grandpas .22

I wish that were true but we have elected Democrats up in Tallahassee who care enough to propose banning it with this part of one of the lists:

d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

 

Yeah, and we had to put a dowel in our shotguns tube magazine to reduce capacity when I was a kid. So what? Get a life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still have to do that if hunting. Doesn't bother me. There are all kinds of rules about harvesting wildlife. I can't think of one that bothers me, whether it's restricting the fishing tackle we can use or the guns we can use.

 

But we're allowed to do things like pass those shotguns on to our kids, so they can have the same sorts of experiences. I want to do that so will speak out against those who want to make sure this is the last generation of Floridians able to legally own ordinary rifles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake News Fresh From Pooplius:

 

...those who want to make sure this is the last generation of Floridians able to legally own ordinary rifles.

 

 

Nice combo here,. It's the Family Heirloom Meltdown combined with the Tube Feeder Confiscation Theory.

The family arsenals are at imminent risk, so Tom Ray must speak up. Frequently and repeatedly.

We have a crisis. Always the drama. Always the hyperbole based on a grain of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe CATO Tom will be my next screen name, but for the next month I hope this one makes you puke.

 

I would suggest "Scary Black" or "Evil Black" Tom for the next one given that jocal and so many others shit themselves at the thought of rifles of color.

 

 

Look to the DNA for identification.

These assault weapons are what they are: the apex of the evolution of handheld killing machines.

...

 

LMAO. Hang on. I've gotta go take a pic of my dad's old gun to go with this description.

 

Strange that armies around the world have missed out on the apex and you almost never see a soldier carrying an old .22 with a fixed tube magazine.

 

 

TR%20Crybaby%2011%20tube%20feeder_zpslk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Maybe CATO Tom will be my next screen name, but for the next month I hope this one makes you puke.

 

I would suggest "Scary Black" or "Evil Black" Tom for the next one given that jocal and so many others shit themselves at the thought of rifles of color.

 

 

Look to the DNA for identification.

These assault weapons are what they are: the apex of the evolution of handheld killing machines.

...

 

LMAO. Hang on. I've gotta go take a pic of my dad's old gun to go with this description.

 

Strange that armies around the world have missed out on the apex and you almost never see a soldier carrying an old .22 with a fixed tube magazine.

 

 

TR%20Crybaby%2011%20tube%20feeder_zpslk2

 

 

 

that's fairly accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one could apply for a Certificate of Possesion for a scary .22 squirrel assault weapon with a fixed magazine holding more than ten rounds after October 1, 2018.

 

That would make this the last generation of Floridians who could legally own them.

 

If I were faced with the prospect of trying to dispute those simple facts or attacking the person who called attention to them, I'd be tempted to just attack the messenger too.

 

(4) CERTIFICATE OF POSSESSION.—
263 (a) Any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon or
264 large capacity ammunition magazine prior to October 1, 2017,
265 shall apply by October 1, 2018, or, if such person is a member
266 of the military or naval forces of this state or of the United
267 States and is unable to apply by October 1, 2018, because he or
268 she is or was on official duty outside of this state, shall
269 apply within 90 days of returning to the state to the Department
270 of Law Enforcement, for a certificate of possession with respect
271 to such assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine.
272 The certificate shall contain a description of the assault
273 weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine that identifies it
274 uniquely, including all identification marks; the full name,
275 address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner; and any
276 other information as the department may deem appropriate. The
277 department shall adopt regulations no later than January 1,
278 2018, to establish procedures with respect to the application
279 for, and issuance of, certificates of possession pursuant to
280 this section.
281 ( B) An assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine
282 possessed pursuant to this section may not be sold or
283 transferred on or after January 1, 2018, to any person within
284 this state other than to a licensed gun dealer, as provided in
285 subsection (5), or by a bequest or intestate succession. A
286 person who obtains title to an assault weapon or large capacity
287 ammunition magazine for which a certificate of possession has
288 been issued under this section by bequest or intestate
289 succession shall, within 90 days of obtaining title, apply to
290 the Department of Law Enforcement for a certificate of
291 possession as provided in paragraph (a), render the weapon or
292 large capacity ammunition magazine permanently inoperable, sell
293 the weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine to a licensed
294 gun dealer, or remove the weapon or large capacity ammunition
295 magazine from the state. Any person who moves into the state in
296 lawful possession of an assault weapon or large capacity
297 ammunition magazine, shall, within 90 days, either render the
298 weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine permanently
299 inoperable, sell the weapon or large capacity ammunition
300 magazine to a licensed gun dealer or remove the weapon or large
301 capacity ammunition magazine from this state,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother's cat may have made the squirrel assault rifle obsolete anyway. He's killed three of the little tree rats this week. We just find a tail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No one could apply for a Certificate of Possesion for a scary .22 squirrel assault weapon with a fixed magazine holding more than ten rounds after October 1, 2018.

 

That would make this the last generation of Floridians who could legally own them.

 

If I were faced with the prospect of trying to dispute those simple facts or attacking the person who called attention to them, I'd be tempted to just attack the messenger too.

 

 

 

You have shitty creds, mate.

Why do you mis-label your message?

It's not from the ACLU, Rosa Parks, or Adam Winkler, making you an intentionally deceitful person AND "messenger")

 

You pull crap like announcing the higher court's upholding of the enormity of the NY SAFE Act as a victory against seven round limits.

Heller III, in the end, was a defeat for Larry Pratt and all gun-rights absolutists. No recognition or discussion?

You have a habit of confusing gun violence stats with violent crime stats.

You have zip for evidence for your claim that defensive gun uses are a benefit to society.

You quote MLK and the CDC as supporting gun mayhem, in ways each would abhor.

You spin propaganda and avoid the very name of, and track record of, your own brand.

You won't discuss the amazing details of Heller as a Libertarian-staffed conspiracy on the Supreme Court. (The fabrication, counsel, research, and plaintiffs, six key players, were Levy Libertarians!)

 

 

You are a party hack, a party operative, not a messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No tirade today, no outrage about how all .22's are confiscate-able assault rifles in FL and WA?

What if this major crisis fades away?

 

Florida is a pro-gun state with an ALEC-infested state legislature.

Florida is the national incubator for sleazy gun laws, and the home of Marion Hammer and Robert Levy.

So why did FL's pro-gun legislature do such a smackdown on AW's?

 

 

272 The certificate shall contain a description of the assault

273 weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine that identifies it

274 uniquely, including all identification marks;

 

...the full name,

275 address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner; and any

276 other information as the department may deem appropriate.

 

...(prohibited guns) may not be sold or

283 transferred on or after January 1, 2018, to any person within

284 this state other than to a licensed gun dealer...

 

... shall, within 90 days of obtaining title, apply to

290 the Department of Law Enforcement for a certificate of

291 possession a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf,

 

no

 

body

 

cares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf,

 

no

 

body

 

cares

I know, who the hell cares about grandpapies .22?

 

Tom thinks it's the end of the republic....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats care enough to ban them.

 

The NRA cares enough to stop the Democrats from banning them in states where that is possible.

 

You care enough to keep asking who cares.

 

I just think it's stupid and wish the Democrats would stop trying to ban ordinary rifles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf,

 

no

 

body

 

cares

 

You need to get thumbprinted to keep an AW in FL? And nobody cares?

 

 

Wrong. Another lie.

You, Cuntfinder the Great, have proclaimed such restrictions unconstitutional.

 

 

Tom cares enough to confuse this issue interminably.

Pooplius is avoiding discussing how this went down in FL.

 

Docs vs Glocks collapsed in FL yesterday, by a 10-1 voting margin in the 10th circuit.

It took six years to defend the First Amendment from the NRA, which claims to be a civil rights org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats care enough to ban them.

 

The NRA cares enough to stop the Democrats from banning them in states where that is possible.

 

You care enough to keep asking who cares.

 

I just think it's stupid and wish the Democrats would stop trying to ban ordinary rifles.

 

How are we defining "ordinary rifles"? We let Tom Ray set the definition?

And how are we defining "AW", when that's simply impossible?

 

Tube feeders were defined and exempted, then the exception was excepted by Larry Pratt types.

What to do?

 

How are we going to define "transfer"?

We find the same problem. It's YUUGE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Joke-awf,

 

no

 

body

 

cares

 

You need to get thumbprinted to keep an AW in FL? And nobody cares?

 

 

Wrong. Another lie.

You, Cuntfinder the Great, have proclaimed such restrictions unconstitutional.

 

I have? Where? In fact I just this week had to go get 10 fingerprint cards and 20 pictures in order to fill out forms to submit to the ATF for 5 NFA items. At a cost of $1000. Actually almost $1200 when you include the prints and pics. I don't think its necessarily unconstitutional, I just think its extremely silly.

 

In the same packet, I have to attach two sets of fingerprint cards for each item. EACH! I would think that if they pull out five sets of forms from the same person, they could figure out that the same fingerprints belong to the same guy. Its a huge barrier and an unnecessary hurdle in front of the ability to exercise a constitutional right. The more I think about it, it might very well BE unconstitutional if this were ever tested in court.

 

Imagine if I required some poor black guy to go get fingerprinted, produce two 2x2 pics, a gov't issued photo ID, and $200 to be able to register to vote? Oh and it took a year for your voting registration to get approved??? You would be screaming bloody murder and jumping over cars left and right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(jocal) You need to get thumbprinted to keep an AW in FL? And nobody cares?

 

 

Wrong. Another lie.

You, Cuntfinder the Great, have proclaimed such restrictions unconstitutional.

I have? Where?

 

How about here,this doozey. This exchange happened during the SAFE ACT whitewash you and Tom Ray had going.

History now shows you were wrong in your constitutional interpretation, and delusional afterwards too...

 

Jocal Posted 20 October 2015 - 05:58 AM

Cry bitches, indeed. Cancel the victory lap.

To read the posts of two contributors, Tom Ray and Simple Jeff, one could miss the point here.

Let's go to Reuters, because the facts have a different emphasis. On Monday, the higher courts of the Second Circuit upheld the heart of the restrictive gun laws in NY and CT.

Assault weapons are legally banned there now. And LCM's are heavily restricted.

Quote

U.S. appeals court upholds core of N.Y., Connecticut gun laws

http://news.yahoo.co...-013414234.html

JBSF Posted 20 October 2015 - 09:13 AM

Jocal, actually that ruling by the 2nd Circuit is perfect. Had they struck down the core of those laws - it would have had a much harder time getting to the Supreme Court to be finally decided. And it would have likely delayed it further. As it is, by being struck down - it all but assures its going to the SCOTUS.

Maybe we can get the AW and Hi cap mag thing resolved once and for all. I'm having a drink to celebrate as I type.....

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=153191&p=5105310

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom cares enough to confuse this issue interminably.

Pooplius is avoiding discussing how this went down in FL.

 

No, the topic post explains how it went down. Our stupid "no fly" list failed miserably to stop a terrorist from getting on an airplane and he used a handgun to shoot people in Fort Lauderdale, meaning it was time to ban ordinary .22 rifles.

 

 

 

How are we defining "ordinary rifles"? We let Tom Ray set the definition?

And how are we defining "AW", when that's simply impossible?

 

Tube feeders were defined and exempted,...

 

I was just quoting Adam Winkler. You want the cite again?

 

The law defines assault weapons and there is no exemption to that definition that covers ordinary .22's with fixed magazines. That's why you can't quote the law and I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the law (which I HAVE quoted, using section 29) expressly exempt .22 caliber tube feeders in that section?

The law, taken as whole cloth, exposes your flimsy claim.

Which is why you have no plaintiff yet to support your ridiculous position.

Yes, I love it when you cherry pick Adam Winkler. You foolishly blow your foot off every time.

He is a professor who has intelligently decimated your platform while quoting the historical developments in context.

Your fifth warning, what a dumbass. You expose yourself, like a swamp-bound dummy, whenever you mention Adam Winkler.

Thanks. Here we go.

Mr. Winkler writes summaries of recent conventions of law professors who oppose your SAF sham, which you got from Larry Pratt.

 

PA Link to Winkler's two conventions

http://forums.sailin...53191&p=5560130

Winkler et al recognize the constitutionality of AW and other gun restrictions. They are professors who are the very nemisises of Larry Pratt.

 

Defying the Extremes on Guns

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/defying-the-extremes-on-guns

Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America shows that, contrary to the extremists on both sides, we’ve always had both a right to bear arms and gun control.

To them (the founding fathers), the Second Amendment was not a libertarian license. We the people were the militia, but that militia was required to be “well regulated.”

Winkler could help to ground Tom, big-time. But Tom is not honest enough (or classy enough) to not mis-represent Mr. Winkler.

Below, Tom is caught flatly mis-stating Winkler's position. The first of Winkler's words in this link expose a blue TR lie:

Quote

 

Publius Johnson, on 15 Jun 2016 - 2:08 PM, said:

Adam Winkler: Not A Fan Of Due Process

BTW, Winkler didn't find Scalia to be true to Scalia's core principles. Dennis Henigan and Judge Posner each make the same point.

 

Gun Rights and Justice Scalia’s Brush with Living Constitutionalism

August 15, 2011

by Nicole Flatow

Justice Antonin Scalia may be the Supreme Court’s “ultimate originalist,” but when it comes to the Second Amendment, he has recently embraced a living Constitution, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler suggests in a column for The Atlantic adopted from his forthcoming book, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the law (which I HAVE quoted, using section 29) expressly exempt .22 caliber tube feeders in that section?

 

Pretending that one section is the same as another and an exemption to one definition is the same as an exemption to another must be good fun.

 

I continue to await the arrival of an honest liberal so that we can move on to the "oops, we didn't mean to ban those" stage of this discussion.

 

If we had a lawyer who was interested in FL firearms rights and could speak honestly on the subject posting here , you might learn that you can't just copy/paste sections of law in your head and pretend it's that way on paper. But we don't. So I'll keep waiting. I expect a long one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Tom, his name is Tom

 

Tom posts misinformation about guns and the deaths they cause.

Tom never answers the questions asked of him in an honest way.

Tom drinks alcohol while using guns in his backyard with guests.

 

Smarten the Fuck up Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why did the law (which I HAVE quoted, using section 29) expressly exempt .22 caliber tube feeders in that section?

Pretending that one section is the same as another and an exemption to one definition is the same as an exemption to another must be good fun.

 

I continue to await the arrival of an honest liberal so that we can move on to the "oops, we didn't mean to ban those" stage of this discussion.

 

If we had a lawyer who was interested in FL firearms rights and could speak honestly on the subject posting here , you might learn that you can't just copy/paste sections of law in your head and pretend it's that way on paper. But we don't. So I'll keep waiting. I expect a long one.

So you're saying the .22 meets the definition of AW, AWs are proposed to be banned, with an exception for said .22.

 

Wtf is the problem then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why did the law (which I HAVE quoted, using section 29) expressly exempt .22 caliber tube feeders in that section?

Pretending that one section is the same as another and an exemption to one definition is the same as an exemption to another must be good fun.

 

I continue to await the arrival of an honest liberal so that we can move on to the "oops, we didn't mean to ban those" stage of this discussion.

 

If we had a lawyer who was interested in FL firearms rights and could speak honestly on the subject posting here , you might learn that you can't just copy/paste sections of law in your head and pretend it's that way on paper. But we don't. So I'll keep waiting. I expect a long one.

So you're saying the .22 meets the definition of AW, AWs are proposed to be banned, with an exception for said .22.

 

Wtf is the problem then?

 

 

The problem is you're buying Jocal's nonsense instead of reading.

 

Go read. The ban applies to AW's OR large capacity magazines.

 

The .22 with the fixed magazine is defined as an AW and there is no exception to that definition.

 

There is an exception to the LCM definition that applies to the gun I have, so it's not banned because of the large magazine. It's still banned because of being an assault weapon, though.

 

If an honest liberal who reads arrives, we can get to the "oops, we didn't mean to ban those" stage of this discussion, which I have seen before. That's unlikely in Florida because the bill is unlikely to pass so no one needs to make it in the least realistic.

 

Out in Washington State, the very similar ban has a much better chance of passage. When the "oops we didn't mean to ban those" stage of the discussion arrives, they'll do what has happened before and either remove the word "rimfire" from the AW definition or replace the word OR with the word WITH in the ban section. Oh, and they'll say they never meant to do that. Then the same thing will happen again and again and nothing different will happen in the progression, leading people like me to believe they did indeed mean to do that and will keep trying until it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, seriously give it a rest. There are other bones to be shaken here. Write your congress critter about it. You are not going to change minds here and it wouldn't matter if you did anyway. You've made your point, move on. Even people who agree with you are rolling their eyes by now. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't noticed my attraction to the Rimas thread?

 

Persistent delusions are a magnet to me. Can't help it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom has effectively retired from the gun threads. The pattern: he spits to the boat forums after cursory activity.

He has become a caricature of himself, hiding behing his .22 caliber wanker project.

 

Tom can't support CC or RTC because, well, "more guns more crime."

He can'tanswer for the collapse of Larry Pratt's sham when it got to the high courts.

 

the adventures of tom ray's elk:

WHOOPS, My Recent Court Failures by Alan Gura

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=152016&p=5434073

 

 

Tom should have listened to Adam Winkler and Antonin Scalia, not LP.

 

Gunfight reveals how, in the 1970s, the modern gun rights movement crystallized around opposition to a wave of gun control laws adopted to restrict access to firearms by blacks.

Let’s hope that the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller can, in the long term, help restore a sense of balance to the gun debate and enable us to break the current political stalemate over guns in America.

In my research into guns, I discovered that efforts to balance gun rights with gun control have shaped America in fascinating and unexpected ways. Dodge City, Tombstone, and other frontier towns of the Wild West had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Out in the untamed wilderness, everyone had guns for self-protection. But when you arrived in a town, where the civilized people lived, you had to check your gun like you might today check your winter coat at a restaurant. The very first law Dodge City residents enacted when the town was established was a ban on carrying concealed guns in public; many towns also prohibited carrying openly displayed guns.

 

Adam Winkler

From <https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/defying-the-extremes-on-guns>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But I still believe that in the event of invasion, insurrection, natural disaster, or some other reason to raise a local militia, people would laugh pretty hard if I showed up with her gun, let alone the old tube-fed .22 "assault weapon."

 

 

 

Pooplius, you're reporting for militia duty, carrying XYZ? This is an outlandish (and persistent) fantasy of yours.

And you gotta be cool when you get there, eh?

Are we keeping up with the Jonses standing in the militia lineup?

Thanks for sharing.

 

THE STORY OF THE INDOOR MILITIA, STARRING POOPLIUS

In Chapter 1, Tom, tells us about his commitment to authority, and all about taking the militia oath. Thus he fulfills his subconscious needs for a badge.

This is the culmination of his many militia fantasies, shared frequently on these forums.

 

To be continued...

Chapter 2: Is Tom's underwear issued by the governor? How does that feel?

Chapter 3: The Indoor Militia Issues.

Q.Can they go out of doors, even with their fancy guns?

A. Not per Heller, Peruta, or Jejerian. No long pants will be needed by Tom's militia.

Chapter 4: Will FL's governor accept and comission Capt. Larry Pratt? He's seventy-something...

Chapter 5: Will the rank and file ever know who led them? Does Pooplius admit this leadership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Out in Washington State, the very similar ban has a much better chance of passage. When the "oops we didn't mean to ban those" stage of the discussion arrives, they'll do what has happened before and either remove the word "rimfire" from the AW definition or replace the word OR with the word WITH in the ban section. Oh, and they'll say they never meant to do that. Then the same thing will happen again and again and nothing different will happen in the progression, leading people like me to believe they did indeed mean to do that and will keep trying until it works.

 

 

The bolded is a sick and silly concern IMO. All this content was the loud, self-inflicted bunching of one's own panties.

It got you all spooled up for extended monotony outrage. Nice show.

 

Off yer game? Whatever, but developments have escaped your attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Strange duck indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom should have listened to Adam Winkler and Antonin Scalia, not LP.

 

Gunfight reveals how, in the 1970s, the modern gun rights movement crystallized around opposition to a wave of gun control laws adopted to restrict access to firearms by blacks.

...From <https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/defying-the-extremes-on-guns>

 

 

Yeah, the NRA was cool back when they understood that we really need to keep guns away from blacks. Then they started fighting for the rights of people like Otis McDonald, who, by the way, is not Jack Miller. Deplorable. Arming the blacks! What will they do next??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Strange duck indeed.

 

Hi Jeff.

Strange duck IMO is the person who would gun down a shirtless tirechucker for clecnching his fists. Ot maybe this type.

 

Simple Jeff's Constitutional Principles

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my guns"

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my Freedom of Speech & Press"

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my Right to Privacy"

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my Right to Due Process"

http://forums.sailin...74#entry5593175>

Simple Jeff's Application

JBSF Posted 28 December 2016 - 10:20 PM

Nope, the risk for pointing a gun at someone and threatening their life is that you might be shot and killed. …

1 more dipshit scum removed from the genepool. Zero fucks given for this shitbag being dead. …

http://forums.sailin...77736&p=5584572

Absolutely zero fucks given that they are dead. The world is a far better place without them.

http://forums.sailin...=4#entry5586782

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tom should have listened to Adam Winkler and Antonin Scalia, not LP.

 

Gunfight reveals how, in the 1970s, the modern gun rights movement crystallized around opposition to a wave of gun control laws adopted to restrict access to firearms by blacks.

...From <https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/defying-the-extremes-on-guns>

 

 

Yeah, the NRA was cool back when they understood that we really need to keep guns away from blacks. Then they started fighting for the rights of people like Otis McDonald, who, by the way, is not Jack Miller. Deplorable. Arming the blacks! What will they do next??

 

 

 

 

The NRA championed MacDonald and Miller, who were blacks. Good on the NRA.

Tom and the NRA have personally grown beyond Judge Taney and Dred Scott.

Therefore the NRA is suddenly pure in racial matters.

 

Tom is trying to whitewash the NRA's underlyiung racist beliefs and rhetoric, I take it. That's quite a chore there.

So here we go again with Tom and his unresolved racial edginess.

 

 

Tom is a cut above too, so a bit of race-baiting is fair sport.

 

THIRTEEN MONTHS OF SOUTHERN-STYLE RACEBAITING

"amplified among blacks" quoted twelve times

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5008086>

 

Ah yes, let's just review the day Tom Ray took race-baiting back up after the Charleston shootings.

He had ceased for thirty days or so (but didn't want to discuss how Mr. Ray had announced a pro-gun policy for The Southern Christian Leadership Conference)

 

 

Post 660 on Tom's Race-Baiter Thread

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Tom Ray, on 14 Jul 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

Guess I heard wrong.

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A Strange duck indeed.

 

Hi Jeff.

Strange duck IMO is the person who would gun down a shirtless tirechucker for clecnching his fists. Ot maybe this type.

 

Simple Jeff's Constitutional Principles

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my guns"

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my Freedom of Speech & Press"

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my Right to Privacy"

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my Right to Due Process"

http://forums.sailin...74#entry5593175>

Simple Jeff's Application

JBSF Posted 28 December 2016 - 10:20 PM

Nope, the risk for pointing a gun at someone and threatening their life is that you might be shot and killed. …

1 more dipshit scum removed from the genepool. Zero fucks given for this shitbag being dead. …

http://forums.sailin...77736&p=5584572

Absolutely zero fucks given that they are dead. The world is a far better place without them.

http://forums.sailin...=4#entry5586782

 

 

Here's a simple question for you joe..... If you knew without a doubt that giving up your right to Freedom of speech (or the press, or privacy, etc) forever would save one child or even a hundred children - would you do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Tom should have listened to Adam Winkler and Antonin Scalia, not LP.

 

 

Yeah, the NRA was cool back when they understood that we really need to keep guns away from blacks. Then they started fighting for the rights of people like Otis McDonald, who, by the way, is not Jack Miller. Deplorable. Arming the blacks! What will they do next??

 

 

 

 

The NRA championed MacDonald and Miller, who were blacks. Good on the NRA.

 

 

Wrong again. One of these days, you'll learn a bit about the three people who have had cases before the Supreme Court involving the second amendment.

 

Or not. I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

Meanwhile, your continued confusion about them is amusing. They're really not the same person at all. Nor are both black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, and thank you for the correction. You will mention this interminably, it's how you do.

Tommy, IMO you are a cheap, petty little man = you mentioned a MacDonald-Miller flub ten times.

You and your elk are so pathetic that Scalia had to help Gura through Heller. LMFAO.

My source is Gunfight by Adam WInkler.

 

************

 

Our subject is the quality of the NRA's racial outlook, and the quality of the Tom Ray racial outlook, if any.

Sweeping Taney amd your cherry-picked Miller propaganda bits aside, the NRA brand has been quite a detriment to blacks.

NRA conventions draw white folks and a marginal, racist mentality. Same for gun shows.

I suggest that Tom Ray can point fingers, but has shown a racial understanding no better than the troubled NRA and the U.S. gun culture..

 

The NRA and Pooplius are only recent faces to the same problem. The Second Amendment itself has racist genes and DNA.

Like many great articles, this one appeared weeks after Sandy Hook:

 

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

By Thom Hartmann

Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35,

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery>

 

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "

Henry then bluntly laid it out:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A Strange duck indeed.

 

Hi Jeff.

Strange duck IMO is the person who would gun down a shirtless tirechucker for clecnching his fists. Ot maybe this type.

 

Simple Jeff's Constitutional Principles

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my guns"

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my Freedom of Speech & Press"

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my Right to Privacy"

"I don't give a fuck how many children die, as long as I can have my Right to Due Process"

http://forums.sailin...74#entry5593175>

Simple Jeff's Application

JBSF Posted 28 December 2016 - 10:20 PM

Nope, the risk for pointing a gun at someone and threatening their life is that you might be shot and killed. …

1 more dipshit scum removed from the genepool. Zero fucks given for this shitbag being dead. …

http://forums.sailin...77736&p=5584572

Absolutely zero fucks given that they are dead. The world is a far better place without them.

http://forums.sailin...=4#entry5586782

 

 

Here's a simple question for you joe..... If you knew without a doubt that giving up your right to Freedom of speech (or the press, or privacy, etc) forever would save one child or even a hundred children - would you do it?

 

 

SImple Jeff, yer on a roll now. But please review my signature line.

 

I'll pass, because you have hitched a Simple Jeff trick question to a complex problem. Again.

You leave no room for the baggage of gun mayhem, you know, all the nuances and ripple effects typically sorted by the courts and by gun incident survivors.

Your trick, either-or question is typical of your intellectual capacity. It's similar to your series of yes-or-no questions, too.

 

Why does your constitutional approach sound sociopathic?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stamina of these two is amazing. Like a chess game when each side only has a King left and they refuse to say "draw"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people like slugging away at each other ineffectively. That said, with only two kings, the tournament rules force a checkmate... if only we could make them accept it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel like standing by and tolerating all the disinformatiuon.

Well, your suggestion is what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel like standing by and tolerating all the disinformatiuon.

Well, your suggestion is what?

 

Ignore Tom's flagrant bait and just mock his obsession like the rest of us. He doesn't convince anyone here, he is mocked even by the right-wingers, and you're not stopping the spread of disinformation elsewhere.

 

They pull your string, you go off, they rinse & repeat. You're not accomplishing anything, they are using you for entertainment. I suggest you break the cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's been ignoring the fact that I flagrantly quoted the proposed law all along Bent.

 

And ignoring my obsession has been the thing to do today.

 

Based on posting volume, my obsession today would have to be the first amendment. Since it has nothing to do with guns, jocal hasn't commented. Nor has anyone else. But I'm the one who is said to be only interested in guns because I can actually read a proposed gun ban and oppose it. So you were probably talking about the imagined obsession, not the real one that has some actual evidence today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And ignoring my obsession has been the thing to do today.

Read it again. We mock your obsession.

 

Based on posting volume, my obsession today would have to be the first amendment. Since it has nothing to do with guns, jocal hasn't commented. Nor has anyone else.

 

But I'm the one who is said to be only interested in guns because I can actually read a proposed gun ban and oppose it. So you were probably talking about the imagined obsession, not the real one that has some actual evidence today.

You made it 24hrs. Congratuations. This is for you:

2pqwewl.jpg

 

You've taken your first steps, though we'll ignore the sneaky sip from the Guns flask every other post. I really hope your sponsor is made from stern stuff, they're going to need it. And when you make it a week or two without a relapse, then you'll get to call the obsession imaginary.

 

Speaking of the imaginary, have you managed to convince yourself that JBSF is a lefty yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't feel like standing by and tolerating all the disinformatiuon.

Well, your suggestion is what?

 

Ignore Tom's flagrant bait and just mock his obsession like the rest of us. He doesn't convince anyone here, he is mocked even by the right-wingers, and you're not stopping the spread of disinformation elsewhere.

 

They pull your string, you go off, they rinse & repeat. You're not accomplishing anything, they are using you for entertainment. I suggest you break the cycle.

 

 

Are you suggesting that jocal is an excellent spokewoman for the anti-gun side? Does he not deserve equal mocking as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that jocal is an excellent spokewoman for the anti-gun side?

No. Wouldn't mind you pointing out where I suggest he's even an 'adequate' advocate for the gun control position so I can correct it. If you're just imagining my position, do feel free to ignore the request though.

 

Does he not deserve equal mocking as well?

Sure he does. Which is why I suggest he stop letting you two wind him up.

 

He long ago stopped being an effective advocate for gun control, if he ever was. He's so focused on attacking you & Tom, anything else he has to offer is easily swept to the side in the mockery & shit-posting that he (deservedly) receives in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you suggesting that jocal is an excellent spokewoman for the anti-gun side?

No. Wouldn't mind you pointing out where I suggest he's even an 'adequate' advocate for the gun control position so I can correct it. If you're just imagining my position, do feel free to ignore the request though.

 

Does he not deserve equal mocking as well?

Sure he does. Which is why I suggest he stop letting you two wind him up.

 

He long ago stopped being an effective advocate for gun control, if he ever was. He's so focused on attacking you & Tom, anything else he has to offer is easily swept to the side in the mockery & shit-posting that he (deservedly) receives in return.

 

 

Hi Bent.

 

I have presented facts, research, and empiriical evidence. Lots of it, from wide sources. They have presented. no comparable foundation to defend gun mayhem.

(Except Scalia, Levy, and Heller, based on flakey studies written and paid for by Libertarians.)

We're sparring and jostling on a personal level too, but the pros and cons of gun control should be decided based on content. On facts.

 

Here, we find you comparing my sound homework to their fluffy claims.

You are better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't feel like standing by and tolerating all the disinformatiuon.

Well, your suggestion is what?

 

Ignore Tom's flagrant bait and just mock his obsession like the rest of us. He doesn't convince anyone here, he is mocked even by the right-wingers, and you're not stopping the spread of disinformation elsewhere.

 

They pull your string, you go off, they rinse & repeat. You're not accomplishing anything, they are using you for entertainment. I suggest you break the cycle.

 

 

Bent, I've participated on the gun forums for more than five years now.

I changed the culture on these boards.

The widespread, un-supported claims by the choir are gone.

So are a lot of fast and loose falsehoods.

Scot set the pace around here. Bullshit walks. Even on the gun forums, according to moi.

I admire your relentlessly effective arguments more than you can imagine.. But I will not stand by when gun owners tell fibs around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed law in Section 1 (a) contains this definition:

 

d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition

 

 

It contains no exemption to that definition, which is why jocal continues to say there is one but won't post it.

 

I thought there was a possibility Bent could be the honest liberal who reads the law and explains it to jocal but the inhibition against saying anything bad about any gun control law appears to be too strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, we find you comparing my sound homework to their fluffy claims.

You are better than that.

 

Not at all. When you do your homework, stick solely to the facts, and refrain from being wound up by the flame-bait posted by others - you can make reasonable arguments.

 

Thing is, for the most part, the vast majority of what you post is petty, childish, and humourless insults that distract from any message you might otherwise be able to make. More importantly, you are easier to wind up and set off on a tirade of incomprehensible gibberish than anyone else in PA. Tom & Jeff clearly take great delight in doing exactly that and no-one, including myself, bothers to read the majority of what you write as a result. Except perhaps Tom & Jeff, so they can better wind you up when you start making sense.

 

I changed the culture on these boards.

The widespread, un-supported claims by the choir are gone.

So are a lot of fast and loose falsehoods.

You really believe that? Then you're more far-gone than I thought. Aside from T&J tag-teaming you whenever they get bored, the only effect you've had on the forums is that more people scroll past all the gun debates without bothering to read either side's arguments. Tom does a great job of burning out anyone who might be convinced by the pro-guns side and you do a great job of burning out those that might be convinced by the gun control side. That's it and that's not a positive development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was a possibility Bent could be the honest liberal who reads the law and explains it to jocal but the inhibition against saying anything bad about any gun control law appears to be too strong.

 

Can't honestly say. The inhibition against talking about gun control in a thread you started, Tom, is just so overwhelming I can't tell what (if any) other impediments might exist. I guess we'll have to wait for an honest conservative to start a thread on the subject before we find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you suggesting that jocal is an excellent spokewoman for the anti-gun side?

No. Wouldn't mind you pointing out where I suggest he's even an 'adequate' advocate for the gun control position so I can correct it. If you're just imagining my position, do feel free to ignore the request though.

 

 

 

I didn't imagine your position. Hence why I asked the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought there was a possibility Bent could be the honest liberal who reads the law and explains it to jocal but the inhibition against saying anything bad about any gun control law appears to be too strong.

 

Can't honestly say. The inhibition against talking about gun control in a thread you started, Tom, is just so overwhelming I can't tell what (if any) other impediments might exist. I guess we'll have to wait for an honest conservative to start a thread on the subject before we find out.

 

 

So if someone else posted that same link to the proposed law you might read it?

 

That could be fun. Would JBSF be an OK messenger?

 

Hey JBSF, would you mind starting a new thread with a link to the proposed law so that Bent can follow the link and read it instead of his usual antic of attacking the person who posted it? Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you suggesting that jocal is an excellent spokewoman for the anti-gun side?

No. Wouldn't mind you pointing out where I suggest he's even an 'adequate' advocate for the gun control position so I can correct it. If you're just imagining my position, do feel free to ignore the request though.

 

 

 

I didn't imagine your position. Hence why I asked the question.

 

So would you mind pointing out where I suggest he's even an 'adequate' advocate for the gun control position so I can correct it? It would really help to know where the impression came.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if someone else posted that same link to the proposed law you might read it?

 

That could be fun. Would JBSF be an OK messenger?

 

I said "honest conservative" and, as I understand it, by his criticism, you consider JBSF someone from the left. After all, only the left complains about how bad you are right? Damn, thought you dodged that one didn't you.

 

Oh well, guess your antics backfired on you again, Tom. Funny how often your bullshit prevents people from thinking you're worth engaging about your obsession. One day you might be able to connect the dots and remedy the situation. Until then, continue pretending it's everyone else's fault. It's working so well for you! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said JBSF is from the left and he has never said that I post only about guns.

 

Only some of the lefties from the USA do that, along with you, LB15, random, Sloop, pretty much any foreigner.

 

OK, so who will have to post this link so that you will follow it instead of attacking the poster?

 

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/0254/BillText/Filed/HTML

 

And is it really such a bad link just because I posted it? I mean, it's the FL Senate website. It's not like I have any control over it. Why must someone else post it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I want to play it for my wife, but I need to go over all the characters with her in advance.

We play a game at work describing clients to each other using only 3 words

Example

Dabs- racist old cunt

Tom- shitstirring (one word) gun nut.

...

 

Not even a sliver of daylight between you and your cuntrymen, LB15. Exactly the same view of me, so I have exactly the same view of you. The difference being, mine is fact based and none of you Aussies can accept the fact that I post about things other than guns.

 

Once your elk see that I don't like gun bans, they can't see anything else about me. And yes, random and Bent are definitely your elk in that way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said JBSF is from the left and he has never said that I post only about guns.

 

Mind pointing out where I claimed JBSF said "you only post about guns"?

 

In your words, only "the left" complains about how bad you are. JBSF has complained about you using the exact same terms I have. By logical inference, your are either incorrect about it being only "the left" or JBSF is from "the left". As you refuse to countenance the former, the latter is a valid conclusion - at least in regards to your point of view.

 

Your words, your deflection, your unintended consequence. You could be a man about it and admit that complaints about your conduct here come from both sides of the political spectrum, but that would mean backing down. I've never seen you do that without someone blatantly waving the opportunity for more "gun talk" in your face... and I'm not interested in discussing gun control with you, so the only incentive is your own integrity. I doubt it's got the strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that jocal is an excellent spokewoman for the anti-gun side?

No. Wouldn't mind you pointing out where I suggest he's even an 'adequate' advocate for the gun control position so I can correct it. If you're just imagining my position, do feel free to ignore the request though.

 

 

I didn't imagine your position. Hence why I asked the question.

So would you mind pointing out where I suggest he's even an 'adequate' advocate for the gun control position so I can correct it? It would really help to know where the impression came.

Sigh. Typically, at least the English I learned, has the concept that if you start a sentence with "are you...." and it ends with a ? - that usually implies there is a question involved. Not a statement, not a supposition...... a question to the reader likely to clarify something. I dunno, maybe it's different in AUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. Typically, at least the English I learned, has the concept that if you start a sentence with "are you...." and it ends with a ? - that usually implies there is a question involved. Not a statement, not a supposition...... a question to the reader likely to clarify something. I dunno, maybe it's different in AUS.

 

Ah, so your position is that questions in this forum come from nowhere and don't imply anything about the person queried. Got it. I'll be certain to keep the exact phrasing above in mind the next time you seem confused about such things. Appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I never said JBSF is from the left and he has never said that I post only about guns.

 

Mind pointing out where I claimed JBSF said "you only post about guns"?

 

In your words, only "the left" complains about how bad you are. JBSF has complained about you using the exact same terms I have. ..

 

 

I notice you don't quote my words because I never said that.

 

JBSF has never once complained that I talk about guns too much.

 

People who don't like it when I start threads like this one that complain about ridiculous Democrat gun bans say that I talk about guns too much, probably because it beats trying to explain why the Democrats are right that an old .22 with a fixed magazine is an "assault weapon" that should be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

\The difference being, mine is fact based ...

 

Now that you have become fact-based, you need to re-examine your support of guns as public safety mechanisms.

Now you can also support the known rape prevention facts: right-to-carry laws increase rape incidents.

 

"Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults," they wrote.

...The data from 1979 to 2010 provide evidence that the laws are associated with an increase in rape and robbery.

http://news.stanford...s-study-111414.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about the right to own ordinary .22's, Joe.

 

There are threads about the right to carry.

 

It may astonish you to learn that there are also threads on this forum that are not about guns at all!

 

Go find some of those threads or quote the exemption to the assault weapons definition that you claim exists in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I never said JBSF is from the left and he has never said that I post only about guns.

Mind pointing out where I claimed JBSF said "you only post about guns"?

 

In your words, only "the left" complains about how bad you are. JBSF has complained about you using the exact same terms I have. ..

 

I notice you don't quote my words because I never said that.

 

 

Did so back when you said it a week ago. Three times at least. You stated outright you were going to ignore it.

 

I'm not jocal - I don't beat myself against the brick wall of your insincerity.

 

JBSF has never once complained that I talk about guns too much.

 

Good thing I didn't say that then. I did say "JBSF has complained about you using the exact same terms I have". It's right there in your quote should you choose to read it. Perhaps you are quoting the wrong post and referring to someone else?

 

People who don't like it when I start threads like this one that complain about ridiculous Democrat gun bans say that I talk about guns too much, probably because it beats trying to explain why the Democrats are right that an old .22 with a fixed magazine is an "assault weapon" that should be banned.

 

People don't like it when you're a tedious twat either. It's the bridge that brings the left & the right together here. It's good to know that despite our differences, we can all come together and agree about that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about the right to own ordinary .22's, Joe.

 

 

Yes, and then it morphed into a discussion of your new, fact-based POV.

The facts and numbers show the cultural deterioration of gun mayhem.

 

 

 

Go find some of those threads or quote the exemption to the assault weapons definition that you claim exists in this thread.

 

Tom Ray could discuss this further with Tom Ray by quoting Tom Ray.

 

 

No thanks Tom. You quoted the tube feeder exemption yourself before I did (then bragged about it) many tedious months ago.

You wanked away about this on two other threads too. Give it a rest mate.

You wore this topic out in December. The grownups have moved on from your nonsense.

 

You are slipping, sir, to be hiding behind this non-issue for three months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sigh. Typically, at least the English I learned, has the concept that if you start a sentence with "are you...." and it ends with a ? - that usually implies there is a question involved. Not a statement, not a supposition...... a question to the reader likely to clarify something. I dunno, maybe it's different in AUS.

 

Ah, so your position is that questions in this forum come from nowhere and don't imply anything about the person queried. Got it. I'll be certain to keep the exact phrasing above in mind the next time you seem confused about such things. Appreciate it.

 

 

I have no doubt, in your extreme need for pedantry, you will do exactly that. Have fun with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JBSF has never once complained that I talk about guns too much.

 

 

Yeah, actually I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JBSF has never once complained that I talk about guns too much.

 

Yeah, actually I have.

 

Whilst I know you didn't do it for anyone else - we appreciate it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you suggesting that jocal is an excellent spokewoman for the anti-gun side?

 

No. Wouldn't mind you pointing out where I suggest he's even an 'adequate' advocate for the gun control position so I can correct it. If you're just imagining my position, do feel free to ignore the request though.

I didn't imagine your position. Hence why I asked the question.

I think his preferred position is on his hands and knees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I want to play it for my wife, but I need to go over all the characters with her in advance.

 

We play a game at work describing clients to each other using only 3 words

Example

Dabs- racist old cunt

Tom- shitstirring (one word) gun nut.

...

 

Not even a sliver of daylight between you and your cuntrymen, LB15. Exactly the same view of me, so I have exactly the same view of you. The difference being, mine is fact based and none of you Aussies can accept the fact that I post about things other than guns.

 

Once your elk see that I don't like gun bans, they can't see anything else about me. And yes, random and Bent are definitely your elk in that way.

You are right Tom I stand shoulder to shoulder with Randumby and bent out of shape on the issue of enjoying rattling your cage.

We also agree on our own countries reasonable gun ownership laws. But apart from that and thinking that anyone who could support Trump is a moron, that is about it. (I will admit however that random can be a funny cunt sometimes). It appears to be you that wants to put people in boxes based on your complete obsession with gun laws. But hey everyone needs a hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you oppose the slingshot ban that Bent supports, LB?

 

Has the last known difference disappeared?

 

Are your elk allowed to own .22's that have fixed magazines holding ten or more rounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you oppose the slingshot ban that Bent supports, LB?

 

Has the last known difference disappeared?

 

Are your elk allowed to own .22's that have fixed magazines holding ten or more rounds?

No Tom I still think banning slingshots is stupid but I am not going to be bothered taking to the streets about it. I think compulsory bike helmets and life jackets laws like some states have is also stupid but again, I am not so motivated that I will start a movement to fight it.

No one is perfectly happy about everything in their country by on balance this is a pretty good and safe place to live.

As for the 10 shot gun issue I don't belive I can because I am not a farmer, tool collector or clay pidgin enthusiast, but if I was I could as I understand the law.

What does worry me about my country is the rise of the extreme right in politics - with the tiny minority of the population that are gun nuts jumping on board over that one issue. Tom I get your 2A issue in the US. I only make jokes about you for shits and giggles.

Unlike randumy and bent I countn't give a fuck if every American has an Abrams tank in their driveway. But you do draw a target on yourself. (Pun intended BTW) There are many similarities about you and bent you know. You are both obsessed with the topic of guns, and you have both starred in one of my hitler videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought you oppose the slingshot ban that Bent supports, LB?

 

Has the last known difference disappeared?

 

Are your elk allowed to own .22's that have fixed magazines holding ten or more rounds?

No Tom I still think banning slingshots is stupid but I am not going to be bothered taking to the streets about it. I think compulsory bike helmets and life jackets laws like some states have is also stupid but again, I am not so motivated that I will start a movement to fight it.

No one is perfectly happy about everything in their country by on balance this is a pretty good and safe place to live.

As for the 10 shot gun issue I don't belive I can because I am not a farmer, tool collector or clay pidgin enthusiast, but if I was I could as I understand the law.

What does worry me about my country is the rise of the extreme right in politics ...

 

That's how I understand your law too.

 

I've read the proposed law here and it contains no such exceptions. My dad's old .22 with fixed magazine would simply be illegal upon my death.

 

This causes me to worry about the rise of the extreme left in our gun politics.

 

Even you Aussies can keep the guns our extremists want to ban and you think that's reasonable. So am I being unreasonable opposing a ban that goes further than your laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Tom I still think banning slingshots is stupid but I am not going to be bothered taking to the streets about it. I think compulsory bike helmets and life jackets laws like some states have is also stupid but again, I am not so motivated that I will start a movement to fight it.

 

Life, you may think compulsory bike helmets and life vests are stupid, you're the stupid one. I wish a good friend of mine, the mother of five, was still alive, she'd be the first to tell you, you're flipping' nuts.

 

I was biking through Scotland with another faculty member and one of our students we called Odie because he never really listened to anything we told him.

 

We were on the top of a rather high hill, almost a mountain but, with vegetation. It was Scotland and as people say, the distance between two points is a straight line. Same holds for Scottish roads; straight up and straight down. After breakfast, we told Odie what to expect going down; a hill you can really get moving on, a stone bridge with the road going at right angles over it and the preverbal split into two and to slow down going down. Off he goes yelling OKAY, got it!

 

Well, I was second, road was as described, slowed down, saw the bridge saw the road split but, didn't see Odie. Stop on the bridge cursing the rugrat for going on; what route he took, didn't have a clue. And then I heard a kinda whimper, "Mr. Johnston, down here!." I look around, look over the side of the bridge, see a stripe of moss torn off a 20 ft slate roof from one end to the other, and ten feet below. Finally, I see Odie 15 feet below the roof clutching his bike or what was left of it. Came back up with a badly mangled bike and a bike hemet broken into 3 pieces.

So Life, if you're upset about compulsory helmets and you had been Odie and resting in some cemetery defending your rights. Shit happens but, one can minimize the damage when it happens. Odie's bike was reparable although he had to walk the bike 6 miles with all his gear to get the sucker fixed. I think he learned something from the experience; listen to what people tell you.

 

Now if he hadn't worn a helmet, who knows what could have happened.

Well you couldn't have missed my point by more if you tried. I am a not talking about banning fucking bike helmets you idiot!

I ride every single day of my life unless I am away on a boat- every single day - 20 k's along the waterfront on my mountian bike each morning - on longer rides with my wife and friends on the weekends and occasionally the odd hundred mile 'gut buster' on my road bike. And I wear a helmet every time without fail. Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet on roads with traffic or on trails is a fucking moron.

I also belive that anyone who doesn't make their children wear a bike helmet at all times should taken to the town square and sodimized with a baseball bat.

But when I am at the beach I like to just grab my pushy and bike up to look at the surf or just cruise down the shops to get something - with shock horror- no helmet on!

Because I am not an imbicile I don't need to do an Ocupational, health and safety, swot analysis, risk maagerment assessment to decide when it is safe and when it is not. Both myself and the cops have better things to do with our time than to be writing or receiving a ticket for me acting like a mature adult. You may need to be treated like a child and have the state mandate what is safe and what is not in all aspects of thier existence but that doesn't mean the other 90% of adults do. And don't even get me started on fucking Lifejackets.

If you need to put on a lifejacket each time you go near a boat in any conditions then take up golf. At a club without any water traps obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites