Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:16 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaberTosser View Post
RWM : Do you think that wanting to protect yourself from some of the amateurs in the next bay at the shooting range is sufficient reason to possess body armor? I sure do, and the yahoo in charge of distributing these permits had best think so as well. As a strictly defensive piece it's quite absurd to ban them, but the opposition will be small and will be easily muted, and the bureaucrats will think they accomplished something and congratulate themselves. This will stop crime like banning fire extinguishers will stop arson.
I don't know what range you belong to, but the ones I belong to monitor those who are doing silly things, and they are prevented from doing such again. Often it is other range members who do this monitoring and prevention, and is backed by the range officers.

I don't think there is any direction to ban the purchase of body armour, only to restrict who can purchase it and for specific reasons. I am sure you may be able to make a strong argument for wearing body armour if you claim you are scared of the idiots at the next shooting bay, but I would bet that there would be an investigation to the range, and it could face closure, then eliminating your need for body armour.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:16 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 34,653
Default

If it was really meant to protect society, or the police, they wouldn't be charging $50 per year for a permit, it would be worth doing for no charge.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:16 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
So why are you so against the government wanting to issue you a permit to have the body armour? Are you talking from both sides of your mouth?
I believe that law abiding citizens should be able to buy body armour if they want. If there is a problem with gang bangers/criminals using body armour while murdering police officers, then a background/criminal check would be ok with me. But not allowing ANYONE to buy body armour unless the government decides it's ok, is unacceptable to me.
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:21 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi View Post
I believe that law abiding citizens should be able to buy body armour if they want. If there is a problem with gang bangers/criminals using body armour while murdering police officers, then a background/criminal check would be ok with me. But not allowing ANYONE to buy body armour unless the government decides it's ok, is unacceptable to me.
That is your opinion. I don't agree, and that is fine with me. There are many other things to worry about. But then again I own body armour. So I guess I will need to pay for the right to own it now.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:21 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 34,653
Default

Quote:
But not allowing ANYONE to buy body armour unless the government decides it's ok, is unacceptable to me.
Charging someone $50 per year to allow them to protect themselves is unacceptable.

Quote:
So I guess I will need to pay for the right to own it now.
Once a permit is required to own one, it is no longer your right to own it, rather it has become a privilege, just like owning a firearm, or driving a motor vehicle.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:22 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
If it was really meant to protect society, or the police, they wouldn't be charging $50 per year for a permit, it would be worth doing for no charge.
And then raise taxes so everyone else can pay for the administration? The $50 fee is more of a user pay system from what I see.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:24 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
That is your opinion. I don't agree, and that is fine with me. There are many other things to worry about. But then again I own body armour. So I guess I will need to pay for the right to own it now.
You are right, there are TONS of things that someone can worry about and protect themselves from. I just don't know why someone would be ok with the government TELLING you what you can and can not protect yourself against.

Don't get me wrong, I don't own body armour and I can't see myself ever buying any, but I HATE the fact that I can't if I wanted or felt I needed to.
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:25 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 34,653
Default

Quote:
And then raise taxes so everyone else can pay for the administration? The $50 fee is more of a user pay system from what I see.
The government is the one that is legislating the permit, so they should accept the cost. They wasted over 2 billion dollars on the long gun registry because they legislated it into law, so why not waste even more on equally useless regulations?
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:26 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Once a permit is required to own one, it is no longer your right to own it, rather it has become a privilege, just like owning a firearm, or driving a motor vehicle.
And what is wrong with this? You are not being banned from owning it, just need to meet certain requirements to own it.

It is not like body armour is a fashion statement. It is heavy and intrusive. But if you need it, it is worth the trouble, and nobody is banning you from it. Just prove why you need it.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:28 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi View Post
You are right, there are TONS of things that someone can worry about and protect themselves from. I just don't know why someone would be ok with the government TELLING you what you can and can not protect yourself against.

Don't get me wrong, I don't own body armour and I can't see myself ever buying any, but I HATE the fact that I can't if I wanted or felt I needed to.
They are not telling you you can't have it. You just need to give a reason why you need it. There is a big difference.

Kind of like a handicapped sign.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:29 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The government is the one that is legislating the permit, so they should accept the cost. They wasted over 2 billion dollars on the long gun registry because they legislated it into law, so why not waste even more on equally useless regulations?
This being put forth by the Provincial Government. Not the Federal Government.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:30 PM
darius darius is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 874
Default

while they are at it they should also ban all handguns , all the gang bangers are popping caps with hand guns . also ban cadilac escilades , they are rolling busting caps in escilades . ha



same logic really
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:31 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 34,653
Default

Quote:
It is not like body armour is a fashion statement. It is heavy and intrusive. But if you need it, it is worth the trouble, and nobody is banning you from it. Just prove why you need it.
As previously posted, alcohol and tobacco kill thousands of Canadians every year, yet no permit is required to use either,so this new legislation certainly isn't about protecting Canadians. Perhaps we should have to prove why you need alcohol or tobacco in order to possess it? I would like to see what excuses the government would accept in that situation.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:32 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
They are not telling you you can't have it. You just need to give a reason why you need it. There is a big difference.

Kind of like a handicapped sign.
Do you think that you should have to prove to the government that you NEED a knife when you buy it? And have to PAY for the PRIVILEGE of owning said knife?

What about a baseball bat? I bet there are more baseball bats used during crimes in Alberta than bullet proof vests. Should we have to show that we are a part of a softball team and then PAY the government for the privilege?
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:33 PM
Lefty-Canuck's Avatar
Lefty-Canuck Lefty-Canuck is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 26,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
As previously posted, alcohol and tobacco kill thousands of Canadians every year, yet no permit is required to use either,so this new legislation certainly isn't about protecting Canadians. Perhaps we should have to prove why you need alcohol or tobacco in order to possess it? I would like to see what excuses the government would accept in that situation.
There is no excuse....except from them they likey the tax dollars.....so they aren't going to stop selling one of their biggest sources of revenue.

LC
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:33 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 34,653
Default

Quote:
This being put forth by the Provincial Government. Not the Federal Government.
It's comparably stupid legislation, regardless of which government legislates it into law.

Quote:
There is no excuse....except from them they likey the tax dollars.....so they aren't going to stop selling one of their biggest sources of revenue.
Exactly.You are allowed to endanger your own life, and the lives of other Canadians , as long asthe government profits from it, but you can't protect yourself if the government doesn't have a way to profit from it.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:34 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 10,678
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 220swifty View Post
Redford is working hard to ram a pile of laws through before the election. Pretty busy for an unelected premier.

All my other thoughts have been covered by the rational, logical members above. You know who you are.
Ding Ding Ding! Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!! The Legacy of Laws from the Unelected, Lefty Feminist Premiere.......
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:36 PM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,812
Default

I can't possibly imagine a scenario where I would ever want to buy or wear body armour, but why the heck should the government be deciding that?

Kinda weird to see so many people that are OK with the gov treating us all like criminals. Maybe if they did their job and put criminals in jail, they wouldn't have to come up with so many assinine excuses of laws pretending they are doing something to fight crime. Typical liberal BS.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:36 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darius View Post
while they are at it they should also ban all handguns , all the gang bangers are popping caps with hand guns . also ban cadilac escilades , they are rolling busting caps in escilades . ha



same logic really
I don't see it that way. Nothing is being banned.

Here is BC's law. Alberta wants to go to something similar.

Part 1 Possession of Body Armour
Prohibition on possession of body armour

2 (1) In this section:

"armoured car guard" means an individual who performs the work of, or provides any aspect of the services provided by, an armoured car guard service, as defined in the Security Services Act;

"private investigator" has the same meaning as in the Security Services Act;

"security consultant" has the same meaning as in the Security Services Act;

"security guard" means an individual who performs the work of, or provides any aspect of the services provided by, a security guard service, as defined in the Security Services Act.

(2) A person must not possess body armour except under the authority of a valid body armour permit issued in the person's name.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person who

(a) holds a valid security worker licence authorizing the person to perform the work of

(i) an armoured car guard,

(ii) a private investigator,

(iii) a security consultant,

(iv) a security guard, or

(v) a body armour salesperson,

while the person is in the course of employment under the security worker licence,

(b) holds a valid security business licence for a security business described in paragraph (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of the definition of "security business" in the Security Services Act, while the person is in the course of employment in relation to the security business licence, or

(c) is exempt under the regulations.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:36 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugatika View Post
I can't possibly imagine a scenario where I would ever want to buy or wear body armour, but why the heck should the government be deciding that?

Kinda weird to see so many people that are OK with the gov treating us all like criminals. Maybe if they did their job and put criminals in jail, they wouldn't have to come up with so many assinine excuses of laws pretending they are doing something to fight crime. Typical liberal BS.
win
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:37 PM
canadiantdi's Avatar
canadiantdi canadiantdi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
I don't see it that way. Nothing is being banned.

Here is BC's law. Alberta wants to go to something similar.

Part 1 Possession of Body Armour
Prohibition on possession of body armour

2 (1) In this section:

"armoured car guard" means an individual who performs the work of, or provides any aspect of the services provided by, an armoured car guard service, as defined in the Security Services Act;

"private investigator" has the same meaning as in the Security Services Act;

"security consultant" has the same meaning as in the Security Services Act;

"security guard" means an individual who performs the work of, or provides any aspect of the services provided by, a security guard service, as defined in the Security Services Act.

(2) A person must not possess body armour except under the authority of a valid body armour permit issued in the person's name.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person who

(a) holds a valid security worker licence authorizing the person to perform the work of

(i) an armoured car guard,

(ii) a private investigator,

(iii) a security consultant,

(iv) a security guard, or

(v) a body armour salesperson,

while the person is in the course of employment under the security worker licence,

(b) holds a valid security business licence for a security business described in paragraph (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of the definition of "security business" in the Security Services Act, while the person is in the course of employment in relation to the security business licence, or

(c) is exempt under the regulations.
It is banned unless the government says you can have it, that's the issue.
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:39 PM
CaberTosser's Avatar
CaberTosser CaberTosser is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 17,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
And then raise taxes so everyone else can pay for the administration? The $50 fee is more of a user pay system from what I see.
User pay for a completely unnecessary program that would keep body armor out of gang bangers hands in the same way that gun control keeps them disarmed? Sorry, but you failed logic 101. They're criminals..... Who for a one red second honestly thinks that if these guys already get handguns and even full auto prohibs through black-market channels that they'd come to a full stop and reconsider their lifestyle choices because of a new body armor ban?

It's another Emperors New Clothes law; a tactic grab by the police that will also be treated just like our firearm laws: if it gets to court, the prosecution will have already pleaded out all the annoying little charges to get a plea on whatever meatier one looks best on their resume statistic chart. Except in Toronto, where the police will use it as a ruse to search your whole house and then sieze and destroy your property before your first court date.
__________________
"The trouble with people idiot-proofing things, is the resulting evolution of the idiot." Me
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:39 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi View Post
Do you think that you should have to prove to the government that you NEED a knife when you buy it? And have to PAY for the PRIVILEGE of owning said knife?

What about a baseball bat? I bet there are more baseball bats used during crimes in Alberta than bullet proof vests. Should we have to show that we are a part of a softball team and then PAY the government for the privilege?
Do you want your 14yr old son wearing body armour to school?

This is not about weapons. It is about body armour. There is no legitimate purpose for wearing body armour other than to protect yourself from being shot or stabbed.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:40 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 34,653
Default

Quote:
I can't possibly imagine a scenario where I would ever want to buy or wear body armour, but why the heck should the government be deciding that?

Kinda weird to see so many people that are OK with the gov treating us all like criminals. Maybe if they did their job and put criminals in jail, they wouldn't have to come up with so many assinine excuses of laws pretending they are doing something to fight crime. Typical liberal BS.
Best post on the entire thread so far! The government chooses to treat all Canadians as criminals rather than deal with the real criminals.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:42 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 34,653
Default

Quote:
There is no legitimate purpose for wearing body armour other than to protect yourself from being shot or stabbed.
There is no legitimate purpose for smoking or chewing tobacco products, yet you don't need a permit to possess them.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:42 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloopbloob View Post
Whats the big deal. Its intended to restrict access to those with bad intent.
Freedom is the big deal!

This is just more of the same stupid, tyrannical, inane, dumb, ineffective, offensive, insulting, useless, distracting, bozo kind of placebo laws that take the blame for criminal behaviour away from the criminal and instead regulate the behaviour of the law-abiding in an attempt to prevent a criminal from committing a crime. (I assume we are not all in a knot about somebody who buys a BP vest to, say, gather honey from hives. I also assume it's about stopping crime. If not, we are all on a looney farm.)

Criminals don't obey laws. That's why they are called criminals. This does one thing, and one thing only - it requires obedience from the law-abiding. Criminal intent is thrown out the window - again. The law-abiding are regulated in a stupid attempt to make certain criminal conduct impossible, i.e., resisting arrest or robbing a bank with a vest on.

News flash: Resisting arrest and robbing banks are already illegal. If criminals don't obey a law that says: No Bank Robbing, why'n hell are they going to obey a law that says: No Bank Robbing While Wearing A BP Vest?

If it's about "bad intent", bloopbloop, (as it should be) they why doesn't the law say that? It SHOULD be about "bad intent", I agree with you that far. But that's not what is regulated, is it? We already have those laws on the books, don't we?



I'm too tired to lay it out any more intelligently than that tonight; but that's the gist of it.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:42 PM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,812
Default

what about bulletproof niqabs???

Why not just have a law that if you commit a crime and are wearing body armour and the police want to shoot at you, you have to stand still and let them catch up to you so they can have a good head shot. That law makes about as much sense as this one.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:44 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaberTosser View Post
User pay for a completely unnecessary program that would keep body armor out of gang bangers hands in the same way that gun control keeps them disarmed? Sorry, but you failed logic 101. They're criminals..... Who for a one red second honestly thinks that if these guys already get handguns and even full auto prohibs through black-market channels that they'd come to a full stop and reconsider their lifestyle choices because of a new body armor ban?

It's another Emperors New Clothes law; a tactic grab by the police that will also be treated just like our firearm laws: if it gets to court, the prosecution will have already pleaded out all the annoying little charges to get a plea on whatever meatier one looks best on their resume statistic chart. Except in Toronto, where the police will use it as a ruse to search your whole house and then sieze and destroy your property before your first court date.
No law will stop gang bangers from doing what they do.

This is not a ban. Why does everyone here see this as a ban? It is just a restriction to have some control on body armour.

Now the article says that body armour is a internet search away. Yes if you want to buy old out dated body armour. I would not risk my life with an old surplus piece of body armour. I bought mine for a reason, and that reason is where I work some times I risk being shot or blown up. My body armour may only provide me marginal protection from this risk.

There is no reason for me to ever wear my body armour here in Canada, unless I become a security guard or bouncer.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:44 PM
darius darius is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
I don't see it that way. Nothing is being banned.

Here is BC's law. Alberta wants to go to something similar.

Part 1 Possession of Body Armour
Prohibition on possession of body armour

2 (1) In this section:

"armoured car guard" means an individual who performs the work of, or provides any aspect of the services provided by, an armoured car guard service, as defined in the Security Services Act;

"private investigator" has the same meaning as in the Security Services Act;

"security consultant" has the same meaning as in the Security Services Act;

"security guard" means an individual who performs the work of, or provides any aspect of the services provided by, a security guard service, as defined in the Security Services Act.

(2) A person must not possess body armour except under the authority of a valid body armour permit issued in the person's name.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person who

(a) holds a valid security worker licence authorizing the person to perform the work of

(i) an armoured car guard,

(ii) a private investigator,

(iii) a security consultant,

(iv) a security guard, or

(v) a body armour salesperson,

while the person is in the course of employment under the security worker licence,

(b) holds a valid security business licence for a security business described in paragraph (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of the definition of "security business" in the Security Services Act, while the person is in the course of employment in relation to the security business licence, or

(c) is exempt under the regulations.
with all due respect your out to lunch with this .

with the above law its like sayign you can only own a butcher knife if yur employed as a butcher , and so on , and so on . .

if this passes i think ill buy some body armor just because . abssolutely assenine
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:46 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugatika View Post
what about bulletproof niqabs???

Why not just have a law that if you commit a crime and are wearing body armour and the police want to shoot at you, you have to stand still and let them catch up to you so they can have a good head shot. That law makes about as much sense as this one.


You've got a good grasp of the insanity of these emotion laws.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -7. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.