Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 01-03-2016, 12:06 PM   #121
OLD GOAT
OLDGOAT7205963
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CAPE
Posts: 693
So what happened to the five year jail term in Massachusetts for having or using a gun without a license???
To hard on the lawyers or judges???

I have thought that to be law for thirty , to fifty years.
Five years in a tent city should straighten things out
OLD GOAT is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 12:35 PM   #122
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfighter View Post
My understanding is that Hitler came up with the name Sturmgewehr 44 for the new improved German battle rifle. Loosely translated it is assault weapon, as he wanted it to be used to "storm" enemy positions.
Interesting how Hitler added the pistol grip and extended round magazine to make it look more scary
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 12:45 PM   #123
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
I fed the info into the Spence-O-Meter.....its an invention of mine that takes the info, strips out the facts, removes common sense......then neatly spits it out all wrapped up in a nice bundle of unsubstantiated beliefs and sarcastic innuendos.

Don't worry., I'll credit you when I get the patent registered
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I figured you guys are smart enough to just get the summary product.
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 12:49 PM   #124
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightfighter View Post
My opinion is that majority are stolen and traded through black market.
Interesting read on this topic.

Quote:
Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...rocon/guns.htm
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 12:54 PM   #125
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence.
You didn't really provide either.
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 01:00 PM   #126
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
How does the serial number on a gun prevent somebody from using it illegally ? The serial number could only be used to locate an owner if the police have that gun in hand. Chances are that gun was not purchased legally anyway .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The serial number isn't to prevent a gun from being used illegally, it's to make it easier to understand the flow of illegal weapons. Odds are a lot are coming from the same group of corrupt dealers and straw purchasers.

Read that link I posted above...

Quote:
ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes.
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 02:45 PM   #127
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Written when to of the line firearm was a single shot musket....

I'm with DZ (and gulp, I agree with Dangles). CCW for self defense, sure. Hunting rifles, shotguns for hunting or home protection. Absolutely.

I think there is a limit where at minimum for some types of firearms a special permit beyond is required, I think to me, that is not denying someone there right, but does place some restrictions that hopefully keep some out of the wrong hands. A common theme in a lot of these instances is mental health.
You people don't get it
It's not about the type, kind or size of the arms referred to in the 2nd amendment , it is to give the right to the people to protect themselves from the government. Have you heard of the federal employees like homeland security who were asked if they were told to fire upon the American people, would they? And when a negative answer given those were fired ? This is our government over stepping their bounds.
I will not hide my head in the sand
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.

1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!

It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
Slipknot is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 02:47 PM   #128
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
I fed the info into the Spence-O-Meter.....its an invention of mine that takes the info, strips out the facts, removes common sense......then neatly spits it out all wrapped up in a nice bundle of unsubstantiated beliefs and sarcastic innuendos.

Don't worry., I'll credit you when I get the patent registered
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Outstanding !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.

1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!

It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
Slipknot is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 02:59 PM   #129
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot View Post
You people don't get it
It's not about the type, kind or size of the arms referred to in the 2nd amendment , it is to give the right to the people to protect themselves from the government. Have you heard of the federal employees like homeland security who were asked if they were told to fire upon the American people, would they? And when a negative answer given those were fired ? This is our government over stepping their bounds.
I will not hide my head in the sand
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
At the time the militia weren't protecting the people from their own government, they were protecting them from the British!

What did Washington do during the Whiskey Rebellion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 03:30 PM   #130
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
At the time the militia weren't protecting the people from their own government, they were protecting them from the British!

What did Washington do during the Whiskey Rebellion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You might want to check your history since the 2nd amendment was ratified after we declared our independence and Washington became our first president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 03:32 PM   #131
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
You might want to check your history since the 2nd amendment was ratified after we declared our independence and Washington became our first president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well aware of the timeline.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 03:50 PM   #132
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Well aware of the timeline.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So what you are saying it was the citizens who were to defend the state/country from an invasion by the British.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 04:06 PM   #133
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 04:14 PM   #134
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
That is your opinion

But not mine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Slipknot is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 04:24 PM   #135
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
I did not offer any opinion slip
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 04:38 PM   #136
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The Amendment, as written, was about the security of a free State. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would include "rising and fighting," as you put it, against ANY government which tried to limit or deny the freedoms granted to the People in the Constitution.

That was made clear by those who drafted the Constitution in their debates during ratification, and in their debates in various newspapers and journals, and especially in the essays in the ongoing debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As well as in various comments by Founders during and after the ratification of the Constitution.

They understood the federal government they were creating might one day become just as tyrannical as the British government they had just overthrown. If it were given power to control citizen access to firearms as the British tried to do, then it could disarm them.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, regardless if it was "their own" or a foreign government. Even more so to protect against "their own" government, since attacks by foreign governments could initially and more efficiently be repelled by the standing federal military, not by the "militia," of "their own" government.
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 04:48 PM   #137
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
The Amendment, as written, was about the security of a free State. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would include "rising and fighting," as you put it, against ANY government which tried to limit or deny the freedoms granted to the People in the Constitution.

That was made clear by those who drafted the Constitution in their debates during ratification, and in their debates in various newspapers and journals, and especially in the essays in the ongoing debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As well as various comments by Founders during and after the ratification of the Constitution.

They understood the federal government they were creating might one day become just as tyrannical as the British government they had just overthrown. If it were given power to control citizen access to firearms as the British tried to do, then it could disarm them.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, regardless if it was "their own" or a foreign government. Even more so to protect against "their own" government, since attacks by foreign governments could initially and more efficiently be repelled by the standing federal military, not the "militia," of "their own" government.
That's the way I see it. And to claim they didn't forsee the advancement of arms in regards to efficiency or lethality is rediculous. They wanted the people/citizens to have the ability to protect their freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 05:57 PM   #138
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
That's the way I see it. And to claim they didn't forsee the advancement of arms in regards to efficiency or lethality is rediculous. They wanted the people/citizens to have the ability to protect their freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes, that's one of those specious little arguments the left throws out in the hopes that we're too stupid to see through them. Currently, among lot's of other things, for instance, Obamacare. They were depending on the stupidity of the American people to not grasp what was really going on.

As for seeing the advancement of arms, OF COURSE, the Founders knew that weapons would become deadlier. They were highly intelligent students of history. The knew very well that the weapons as well as all the other contrivances of their own time were technologically superior to those of the past. And that the technological advance of history was not going to stop with their generation. Heck, Franklin was discovering electricity. There were many technological inventions and advancements being created right in their view. That's why they made the structure of the Constitution general enough to apply to future generations, rather than so specific and cumbersome so that it could only apply to conditions as they were.

They knew well that militaries and weapons could become far more lethal than in their days of ratification. And they knew that if the second amendment were to enable the People to fight against tyrannical government in the future, they would require sufficient weapons similar to those against whom they would fight. That's why they wrote "arms" rather than "muskets."
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 06:35 PM   #139
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
This is an example of how paranoia propaganda is spread. I don't think we need militias yet but the conspiracy freaks are coming out of hiding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 06:47 PM   #140
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
well, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights are documents designed to be "deterrents from government oppression"(our government, not foreign governments) and a framework for the relationship between our government and the individual....I think it's pretty obvious...is it not?

as you said previously "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear...
scottw is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 06:47 PM   #141
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
As for seeing the advancement of arms, OF COURSE, the Founders knew that weapons would become deadlier.

They knew well that militaries and weapons could become far more lethal than in their days of ratification. And they knew that if the second amendment were to enable the People to fight against tyrannical government in the future, they would require sufficient weapons similar to those against whom they would fight. That's why they wrote "arms" rather than "muskets."
That is the most important part
I think debutch should go on CNN and explain things, he does a good job.

Our rights to bear arms have been infringed on enough already
I would like access to claymore mines and rocket launchers so we can make America great again :-)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.

1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!

It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
Slipknot is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 07:03 PM   #142
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
This is an example of how paranoia propaganda is spread. I don't think we need militias yet but the conspiracy freaks are coming out of hiding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...103-story.html

Already happening
There are some real whack job extremists out there
Not sure if you have paid attention to what the agenda of our government has been for the past eight years but it's pretty obvious to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.

1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!

It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
Slipknot is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 07:04 PM   #143
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
At the time the militia weren't protecting the people from their own government, they were protecting them from the British!


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
they were fighting a tyrannical government.....the framers were intent that Americans always have the ability to fight a tyrannical government, even their own, if they found if it's operators leaving the framework of the Constitution
scottw is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 07:12 PM   #144
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
I think I need to back step a little and say I know exactly what the 2nd amendment says. My point is that they should have been a little more explanatory in what they meant. That said, the way I see it, our rights have been infringed upon a lot already. We should be able to own fully automatic weapons and an Abrams tank if we wanted.

This reminds me a lot of the Rhode Island state constitution stating that we are allowed to "freely" access the shore to fish and gather. However, don't try doing that with out a salt water fishing liscence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 07:33 PM   #145
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot View Post
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...103-story.html

Already happening
There are some real whack job extremists out there
Not sure if you have paid attention to what the agenda of our government has been for the past eight years but it's pretty obvious to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Bruce,the origins of that conflict go back more than 8 years
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
Sea Dangles is offline  
Old 01-03-2016, 09:54 PM   #146
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119


watch and learn

they want to have complete control, if they get that then how are we free?

The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.

1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!

It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
Slipknot is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 12:04 AM   #147
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Great post! Thankyou!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 12:10 AM   #148
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I kept reading and waiting for some good evidence, even one great anecdote and came up empty.

I started out by asking "What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones? What evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns on a location, such as where he worked, even if it wasn't designated a gun free zone? If the majority of FBI defined mass killings [which differs in magnitude of what is popularly considered a mass shooting and includes private rather than public locations] were domestic in nature, occurring in private homes, which were obviously not designated as gun free zones, what evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns or where they were in those homes, especially if the available gun was in their hands?"

Of course, you didn't bother to come up with such evidence, but you ask for evidence of the reverse.

I pointed out that some articles that purported to debunk the gun free zone "myth" used straw man tactics such as by implying that the supporters of the "myth" were really claiming that the gun free zone was the motivation for killing. When such supporters don't claim that. They acknowledge that there were personal problems that motivated the shooters, but a gun free location merely made it easier to carry out their plan.

I pointed out that the gun-free-zone mythers used questionable statistics to show that the vast majority of mass shootings were not in gun-free zones. And that only 15% to 25% of the shootings were in designated gun-free zones. And by using the FBI definition of mass shootings they claimed that 60% to 70% percent were in private homes (which for the most part are gun free anyway). And about 30% were in work places (which for the most part are also gun free either by designation, understanding, or habit). So that in actuality, even using those misleading statistics, whether designated or not so designated, upon closer examination most of the mass shootings, even by FBI definition, occurred in what were effectively gun-free locations.


And I listed some articles that addressed all that. In one, for instance, a CPRC report showed that a Newtown shooting study claiming only 14% of mass shootings occurred in designated gun-free zones and 86% didn't was flawed because the 86% included private homes (which for the most part, as I said, are gun free). And that, actually, 92% of the shootings did occur in gun-free zones.


And your reasoning that because some mass shootings do happen in gun free zones as proof of it as a factor really doesn't pass the smell test.
You didn't ask for proof. You wanted evidence. And I provided way more, either circumstantial or direct, than you gave for "What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones?" You gave none.

Never mind that even if we take the faulty low-ball estimate of designated gun-free zones only being 15% to 25% of all mass shootings compared to 85% occurring in private homes or work places, the number of designated gun-free zones is miniscule compared with the number of detached private homes (over 91 million to which should be added another 30 million apartment buildings multiplied by the number of living units therein) plus the untold number of workplaces. By that closer analysis the comparatively miniscule number of designated gun-free zones accounting for 15% to 25% of all mass shootings is far more significantly reflective of the importance of location than the rest of the shootings spread over the many millions of not actually designated gun-free zones. Then, again, most of those gun allowed places are actually gun free most of the time.

And never mind the simple logic that a criminal, mass shooter or other wise, would rather that his victims were unarmed. That's too simple a concept and is not subject to impersonal statistical analysis. It would be possible to ask criminals what they would prefer. What do you think they'ld say if they were honest? I know, I know, mass shooters, according to you, all want to commit suicide. But don't they want more easily and assuredly to kill the right number of victims before they croak?

Then there is that troublesome human nature thing which prefers the path of least resistance. But . . . NAHHH . . . that's not an attractive sort of discussion for sophisticated, academic, progressive minds. And, certainly, military logic which seeks advantage in battle would be below the dignity of such minds.

No, it's a higher calling to consider more interesting and challenging notions on which to build a conclusive battery of statistics. The unreachable intellectual elevation of such studies would be more impressive, thus convincing, to the weaker minds of the general public. It is the appearance, the relative superiority of perception, the convolution of context, which produces the more sophisticated aroma in the contest of narrative . . . that passes the smell test.

I would guess that for you, the long history of tortured efforts to create the image of Hillary as Commander in Chief would make the aroma emanating from her butt crack an essence of fine perfume. And such from Cheney just a stinky fart.

And it's amazing how you can cling to and still insist that the notion of a crude video must be recognized as at least a part of the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, but the idea that mass shooters would prefer a gun-free zone to do their work rather than doing it in an armed zone is just a myth.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-04-2016 at 12:26 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 06:20 AM   #149
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I think I need to back step a little and say I know exactly what the 2nd amendment says. My point is that they should have been a little more explanatory in what they meant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think if you read all 10 Amendments....you will find your answer...V mentions land and Naval forces as well as the Militia (citizen army)....a clear distinction...and as II states..."necessary to the security of a free state"..they weren't talking about free from foreign entities, they were talking about free from "oppression" by the Government that they were Establishing, as you put it, , which is as history has taught us, thanks to the propensities of man, inevitable....an armed citizenry is the ultimate guarantee against that....every Amendment limits and restricts the Federal Government from infringing on individual Americans, it is a list of individual protections.....as II restricts the Federal government regarding these rights no where does it empower the Federal Government in the area of citizens arms....you might argue "well regulated" but it would make no sense to give the Federal Government the power to regulate a citizenry's ability to protect itself from an oppressive and/or tyrannical Federal Government would it?

Last edited by scottw; 01-04-2016 at 06:40 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 01-04-2016, 06:57 AM   #150
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
And as far as "well regulated"
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com