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:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-04-2017, 06:45 AM   #91
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

Lots of people die in car accidents, but cars provide an incredible amount of freedom to almost every single one of us. That's why we tolerate the inevitable deaths
yeah...tell that to the families of the innocent victims
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 06:59 AM   #92
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post

what do you tell all of the victims of other "non bump stock gun violence"?
If I was in public office, and I had taken an oath to serve the public, then my response would be easy, and I think you know that. I would tell them that I am honor bound to try and advocate for policies that make these attacks as difficult as possible to execute, within the limits of the Constitution and common sense. Does anyone really think that's where we are?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 07:02 AM   #93
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
yeah...tell that to the families of the innocent victims
I've never heard a car accident victim, advocate for getting rid of cars. Not once, ever.

What you tell the victims of car accidents, is that you'll try to learn from what happened, to see if anything can be improved (safety engineering, speed limits, etc). It's the same principle here with guns.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 07:09 AM   #94
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
If I was in public office, and I had taken an oath to serve the public, then my response would be easy, and I think you know that. I would tell them that I am honor bound to try and advocate for policies that make these attacks as difficult as possible to execute, within the limits of the Constitution and common sense. Does anyone really think that's where we are?
and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 07:10 AM   #95
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I've never heard a car accident victim, advocate for getting rid of cars.
that's because they understand it's the vehicle operator(save mechanical issues) ...and not the vehicle in most cases
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 07:26 AM   #96
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 31,700
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
That being said...I don't see how high velocity weapons are useful for sport shooting, hunting or even home defense.
You are mentioning that velocity thing again. High velocity rounds are very suitable for hunting, preferred in many cases. Certainly important for target shooting and accuracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
So what's the point? The argument to defend against an oppressive government is really just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hopefully that remains the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I got that from what to you posted and I pointed it out.
You said the left politicizes the tragedy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The left politicizes the tragedy and the right politicizes that the left politicized the tragedy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
own as many as you want they should all be registered..

and stop the lie there coming to take your Guns ...

Yes its your right to own a gun what about those 59 and counting Rights not to be killed by Guns "don't tell me what I can/can't own" I am sure thats a comforting remark to the Familys ...

Gun owners are so afraid to say there a gun problem in this country if your a responsible gun owner as you say you are be involved the change needed or get rolled over by it ..

There is a gun problem. Particularly the youth and gang violence and suicides - where most of the death happens. Other things like kid's gaining access to guns should also be better adressed (safe storage, separate ammo storage, etc)

They might not come to take the guns because it has been well established that they won't be given up easily, nor without a fight. But this has not stopped politicians from saying there should be a blanket ban and confiscation. And from politicians that have conducted partial bans it is not a big leap to complete bands. Some partial bans like like for imminent mental health concerns or DV instances which I would be OK with if it were not for the real consideration that they would not stop their.

Last edited by JohnR; 10-04-2017 at 09:14 AM..

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 07:30 AM   #97
nightfighter
Seldom Seen
iTrader: (0)
 
nightfighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,166
Let me try again to explain my opinion. A bump stock modification is a "workaround" to circumvent the law on automatics. It allows the weapon to "mimic" full auto. I think even the gun rights side will be considering some "concessions" when it comes to this accessory.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.
nightfighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 08:04 AM   #98
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 16,086
I think the other 42 states should consider a ban on bump stocks, I have no problem with that. However, it probably won't prevent another mass shooting of innocent people. I also feel that this maniac had the means to apply for and buy a legitimate full auto rifle if he had the time and qualifications but maybe he he just went the bump stock route because it was easier.
They might be fun to shoot at a pumpkin shoot or something , but not practical for an everyday person.



As far as fingerprint reading on guns, hogwash. First put breathalizers in every car, truck or bus in the country before that lamebrain idea.

Last edited by Slipknot; 10-04-2017 at 08:12 AM..

"A government that does not trust it's law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust" James Madison

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Regan
Slipknot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 09:54 AM   #99
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
and the only way to have stopped this attack would be to ban people from legally owning firearms(or maybe install metal detectors and guards in hotel lobbies)...that's your argument...if this guy got them flying under the radar and created the havoc that he did, then anyone could...that's the obvious argument...anything else is a rhetorical little bandaid on a big wound
"the only way to have stopped this attack would be to..."

You're doing what too many (in my opinion) people on my side do, in regards to this question. I concede that there is no constitutional way to prevent all of these attacks from occurring. You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?

What if we can make the attacks harder to pull off, and what if we can reduce the likely body count, when attacks do take place? For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people?

If someone proposes gun control, I don't think it's a valid rebuttal to point out that any given proposal, will not be a 100% guarantee of 0 future attacks. The minimum requirement for a proposal to be worthwhile, shouldn't be a guarantee of perfect results. If a proposal makes things better (but not perfect), isn't that maybe a good thing?

We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 10:34 AM   #100
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

You are saying, therefore, let's not do anything. Why is it all or nothing?

I never said that

For sh*ts and giggles, what if bump stocks were banned from the get go? Obviously, this guy could have loaded his room with semi autos and gone to town. But do you think it's likely, that if he was limited to true semi auto, that he would not have been able to shoot 600 people? you are an actuary...do the math....he had 72 minutes to pull the trigger....how many bullets could he fire from semi


We have laws that prohibit murder. But people still murder each other. So using your logic, let's do away with those laws? what law did I suggest doing away with?
I honestly can't follow your logic
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 11:17 AM   #101
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,504
And now we have a republican senator saying that the victims should have - "gotten small" to not get shot.

Wtf???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 11:37 AM   #102
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I honestly can't follow your logic
I know. That's what makes me sad.

Bump stocks allow you to shoot more rounds per minute, which, in some cases, increase the expected deaths.

"how many bullets could he fire from semi"

Too many. But, not as many as he could fire from what is essentially full auto.

Scott, let's say your family is in a crowd (let's say in a theater), and a gunman is walking in, preparing to shoot up the area. He has an AR-15. He asks you on his way in, if he should use the bump stock or not, he is going to let you decide. Are you going to say "it makes no difference"? Or are you going to say "don't use the bump stock"?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 12:02 PM   #103
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I know. That's what makes me sad.

Bump stocks allow you to shoot more rounds per minute, which, in some cases, increase the expected deaths.

"how many bullets could he fire from semi"

Too many. But, not as many as he could fire from what is essentially full auto.

Scott, let's say your family is in a crowd (let's say in a theater), and a gunman is walking in, preparing to shoot up the area. He has an AR-15. He asks you on his way in, if he should use the bump stock or not, he is going to let you decide. Are you going to say "it makes no difference"? Or are you going to say "don't use the bump stock"?

I will quote myself from a little earlier

"ok, I'm for that...ban bump stocks..."

the windmills are taking a beating...
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 12:33 PM   #104
tysdad115
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
tysdad115's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pembroke
Posts: 3,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
And now we have a republican senator saying that the victims should have - "gotten small" to not get shot.

Wtf???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not quite as WTF as the CBS VP that said the victims didn't deserve sympathy. Just another D upset over the election still.

At least "get small" is sound advice, albeit terribly obvious and damn near not feasible in a run for your life scenario.

Dude where's my sneakers?
tysdad115 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 01:02 PM   #105
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysdad115 View Post
Not quite as WTF as the CBS VP that said the victims didn't deserve sympathy. Just another D upset over the election still
And to balance the hate- Carl Paladino, a western New York builder, one-time Republican candidate for governor of New York and political ally of President-elect Donald J. Trump, came under fire on Friday for racially offensive comments about President Obama and the first lady, who Mr. Paladino said should be “let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe.”

Mr. Paladino’s comments were published in Artvoice, a weekly Buffalo newspaper. They came in response to an open-ended feature in which local figures were asked about their hopes for 2017.

“Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford,” said Mr. Paladino, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010, making an apparent reference to the Hereford cattle breed. He said he hoped the disease killed the president.

Asked what he most wanted to see “go away” in the new year, Mr. Paladino — who has a reputation in New York political and business circles for speaking in an unfiltered manner reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s — answered, “Michelle Obama.”


“I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,” he said.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 01:19 PM   #106
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,537
Paul...wasn't that like a year ago?...surely you can find something contemporary
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 01:53 PM   #107
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,718
Just an easy one to google.
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 02:19 PM   #108
tysdad115
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
tysdad115's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pembroke
Posts: 3,253
If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing. But seeing as how this has nothing to do with the OP lets try to stay on topic ok?

Dude where's my sneakers?
tysdad115 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 02:25 PM   #109
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysdad115 View Post
If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing. But seeing as how this has nothing to do with the OP lets try to stay on topic ok?
And on that we agree 100%. That would constitute animal cruelty.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 02:47 PM   #110
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by tysdad115 View Post
If I was Maxie the gorilla I'd find that offensive too. The poor thing.
classy
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 03:04 PM   #111
tysdad115
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
tysdad115's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pembroke
Posts: 3,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
classy

Dude where's my sneakers?
tysdad115 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 03:27 PM   #112
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,530
Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. But let's be honest Bump stocks and new discussion on silencers or suppressors it's all a game to make more revenue for the gun companies. Gun companies are actually marketing system suppressors to help reduce hearing loss . And I believe stocks in gun companies went up after the shooting. Does anyone know why electronic gun registration is not allowed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 04:18 PM   #113
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,865
Again I'm not a gun owner currently, but I guess I'm curious why a guy legally (I assume) amassing such a large arsenal of weapons is automatically flagged as someone maybe law enforcement should be looking at?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 05:48 PM   #114
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 15,670
Maybe they did, but he didn't do anything wrong until that night.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 05:50 PM   #115
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Again I'm not a gun owner currently, but I guess I'm curious why a guy legally (I assume) amassing such a large arsenal of weapons is automatically flagged as someone maybe law enforcement should be looking at?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Without a law authorizing them to do so I don't think they would be doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 05:52 PM   #116
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If the mass shooters that you refer to (not Muslim) predominantly came from certain other countries, the federal government could impose a travel ban from those countries. But if the mass shooters live in the State, the federal government should defer to that State's legal system.

BTW, you first referred to the "federal" government being expected to do something, then in comparing mass shooting to terrorism you eliminated the "federal" and just referred to government. We have been conditioned by the Progressive trend in politics to merge the two--federal government and government being the same thing. The Progressive mindset is that government SHOULD be centralized. That government and federal government should be the same thing. That the federal government (government) should be involved in all things that influence our lives.

Travel bans from other countries, constitutionally, should be the federal government's responsibility. Mass shootings in Nevada, which don't involve foreign influence, should be the responsibility of Nevada. It may be "perplexing" to you why those concerned about the survival of the Constitution as the actual "law of the land" make a distinction between responsibilities of various levels of government, and that "government" doesn't automatically mean "federal" government. But the distinction should be obvious to those who believe that a federation is preferable to a monolithic State.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 10:25 PM   #117
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 31,700
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing. But let's be honest Bump stocks and new discussion on silencers or suppressors it's all a game to make more revenue for the gun companies. Gun companies are actually marketing system suppressors to help reduce hearing loss . And I believe stocks in gun companies went up after the shooting. Does anyone know why electronic gun registration is not allowed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do silencers / suppressors have to do with the price of heroine in Central Falls? You know the benefits of them. The real benefits - not the crap the talking heads spew.

I'm OK with banning bump stocks - different subject

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 12:33 AM   #118
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,749
So the federal government requires us to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. States require us to buy auto insurance. But the insurance against government tyranny that was given to us free of monetary charge by the Founders is "just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&."

Having health insurance doesn't prevent illness. It helps us to more physically and financially be able to survive illness and return to good health. Auto insurance does not prevent accidents. It makes it more possible to financially survive the misuse of autos and maintain our use of them. The Second Amendment is our freedom insurance policy. It does not prevent the misuse of weapons. It makes it possible to resist an armed government which misuses its weapons to strip us of our unalienable rights--to insure that we do not lose our liberties.

No doubt to many of us now, that sounds quaint. A nice, old fashioned sentiment that is no longer relevant, a historical conceit. But is there some evidence that we should not have any fear of an overreaching government? Or worse, that our government should not fear its citizens? Is a government which is confident that its citizens have been fully pacified through its subjugation of the educational system, its transformation of the political system including the founding structure, its massive regulation of the economy, its collusion with the media, its incremental transfer to itself of powers from the people and their local and State governments . . . is such a government truly not to be feared?

Is there some evidence that we actually no longer need the rights and liberties that the Constitution guarantied to us? Have we been persuaded that we no longer need the insurance policy, no longer need outdated notions such as freedom, liberty, rights?

Well, on reflection, we are as, a society, consumed with the notion of rights. But not some ethereal notion of unalienable ones. We are perfectly satisfied with provided rights rather than inherent ones. What we inherit we are responsible for. It is up to us to protect inherent rights. The rights given to us by a government which we do not fear are its responsibility to decide and dispense. Some may have such rights. Others may not. We become divided by "rights." We don't all have the same old unalienable rights. Just the ones given to us by the benevolent government we trust, do not fear, and which does not fear us. Some we have in common. Others are special to preferred or protected groups. They can be more a matter of enforcement rather than codification. "Gays" can force a baker to bake a "gay" cake. But no one can force a baker to make a chartreuse cake. Those who love the color chartreuse have not been given the right by government to demand chartreuse. Of course, the baker no longer has the unalienable right to his property. Those who make x dollars do not have the right to pay the same tax rate as those who make y dollars. Those who score higher test rates may not have the right to enter a university over someone who scores lower test rates. Certain groups need special rights to get a leg up. Some have the right to say certain words, while the use of those words by others are considered hate speech. Some are granted free speech at publicly supported schools, others can claim free speech to shout down, without prosecution, those they disagree with. And on and on and on.

The notion that the world we presently live in should cause us to have no reasonable fear of government tyranny is not based on actual evidence, historical or otherwise. But the greatest threat to the freedom we have inherited is not the government, rather it is our complacency. Our willingness to constantly allow the government to assume the responsibilities that rightly belong to us as individuals, and our ignorance of how economies work (or don't), and the dangers of all-powerful centralization (politically and commercially).

The actual evidence, if rightly looked at, is that discarding the framework that guaranties us individual freedom, with its insurance policies (the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment), and leaving our lives and sacred honor in the hands and ever changing whims of a centralized and fairly unlimited bureaucracy is "just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&."
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 03:36 AM   #119
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
What do silencers / suppressors have to do with the price of heroine in Central Falls? You know the benefits of them. The real benefits - not the crap the talking heads spew.

I'm OK with banning bump stocks - different subject
trying to go around the Law and promoting a false Narrative NRA and gun makers word games

Like Bump stock simulate rapid Fire their not making gun full Auto if your in denial ... ATF noted that according to Slide Fire, the device “is intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to ‘bump-fire’ an AR-15 type rifle.”

https://youtu.be/x0f7OCnrrpkor Please note his trigger finger not moving and if someone think thats not Automatic fire they shouldn't own a gun


suppressors-good-for-our-hearing yea thats why they are made i thought that was what ear plug were for?


https://www.nraila.org/articles/2011...or-our-hearing

Last edited by wdmso; 10-05-2017 at 04:01 AM..
wdmso is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 03:38 AM   #120
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,530
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf...ses-explained/

a good read another topic that Americas are un aware on how the ability to track weapons have been blocked by our elected officials and Law paid for and written by lobbyist

Last edited by wdmso; 10-05-2017 at 04:03 AM..
wdmso is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:45 AM.


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