Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items









Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest Forums > Off Topic > Politics/Religion/War/Government
 Not a Member? 



Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2009
N0NJY's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 795
Rep Power: 4
N0NJY is on a distinguished road
jjns, I want to address a couple other things you said, the others left out....

Quote:
We do require people to LEARN how to drive before letting them do it.
Cars can kill people too, if left to people who do not operate them in a proper manner, and you're right about "learning gun safety". I grew up in a gun culture and learned from a young age, as did my brothers and sisters, my aunts and uncles before me, and our grandparents before the - and now my children and grandchildren, all about guns, and safety.

It starts at home. Not with the government.

Quote:
For the record, I am NOT a PETA type.
I am... my Tee Shirt says I belong to PETA, "People Eating Tasty Animals"...

Quote:
While I do not hunt, I do fish, so I get the whole feeding my family/enjoying the hunt, thing.
This isn't about hunting. Period. It never was about hunting. Anyone who says it is on either side of the issue is missing the point, and the boat. This is about owning guns by the population of the United States - IN CASE that government blows it and somehow becomes stupid, becomes tyrannical. The government has been for YEARS trying to slowly, but surely remove Rights of citizens in an effort to be more in power.

That is the very basis of "tyranny" and while it may not be on the minds of any particular leader it is certainly on the minds of certain people right NOW in the government.

Removing the right to own weapons is the first step to put people into enslavement (weapons being any form of weapon, from spears and bows, to guns, to weapons of war to hand guns). One step leads to the next.

Quote:
While I do not require a license to own a fishing rod, if I am in an area of fish habitat and have my equipment but no license, I would be in a world of hurt, if caught.
Again, this isn't about hunting and fishing.

Quote:
I do not have a problem with that. Especially if it means that it makes it harder for poachers to operate.
That's fine, you're a law abiding citizen. Poaching damages wildlife and that's the reasoning behind laws to protect the outdoors for all of us. We called that "Conservationism" when I was growing up.

Quote:
I am not FOR gov't intervention, but as distasteful as it is, it is required sometimes.
In this case, it's not required, and it is uncalled for. Period. The Constitution of the United States is very clear on this point and I find it ridiculous that some people in our government are so ignorant of the meaning and spirit in which the Constitution was written they would be so bold as to attempt to introduce laws that go directly against that document.

It IS the basis for which every other law is supposed to be written.

Quote:
OKAY, I have my helmet on and am ready for ENLIGHTENMENT.
Fire away.
Hope we have helped to enlighten you a bit.
__________________
Rick Donaldson, NØNJY

moˈloːn laˈbe!

It's better to be hated for who you are, than to be loved for who you're not.

Let those winds of change blow over my head,
I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead - Jimmy Buffet
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2009
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 109
Rep Power: 5
jjns is on a distinguished road
Thanks for the education.
I suppose I confused the issue between our 2 countries. Up here when they brought in long gun registration, it was the hunters who got upset.
I now understand that is about defending yourself that the right to bear arms is all about, my bad, wont happen again.

Wow, that didn't hurt at all.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2009
erps's Avatar
the pointy end is the bow
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: La Conner, Washington
Posts: 4,853
Rep Power: 7
erps will become famous soon enough erps will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjns View Post
Thanks for the education.
I suppose I confused the issue between our 2 countries. Up here when they brought in long gun registration, it was the hunters who got upset.
I now understand that is about defending yourself that the right to bear arms is all about, my bad, wont happen again.

Wow, that didn't hurt at all.
I understand that program didn't go over too well and there was a lot of non-compliance with your citizens. Is that the case?

This website (first google hit) indicates your gun owners had a 70% non compliance rate for registering.

Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association - Fight C68/Firearms Act Canada
__________________
Ray
S.V. Nikko
1983 Fraser 41
La Conner, WA


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Boating for over 25 years, some of them successfully.

Last edited by erps; 02-02-2009 at 02:07 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Sponsored Links
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2009
Owner, Green Bay Packers
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 10,322
Rep Power: 9
sailaway21 is just really nice sailaway21 is just really nice sailaway21 is just really nice sailaway21 is just really nice
I'd venture the thought that everyone is missing the point!

Gun registration is a state and local issue. The Constitution is silent on the matter other than to say that your right of ownership shall not be abridged.

The significance of the House Bill is that it makes reference to the Commerce clause. Most of the federal powers exerted against the citizenry are an outflow of the federal government's right to regulate interstate commerce. One will note the pains the Bill's authors went to to equate Intrastate commerce with interstate commerce. The Bill presumes that, by their very nature, guns will be trafficked across state lines and are thus within the purview of the federal government.

The law, as written, is unconstitutional due to lack of federal standing in the matter. It makes no provision for a gun legally purchased in Connecticut, registered or licensed in Connecticut, and never removed from Connecticut, or any other state. It doesn't because, it cannot. Only Connecticut can regulate it's firearms. Thus the need to find some sort of connection to interstate commerce. Aside from being unconstitutional the Bill is also hardly ingenious; the feds have been trying this for, well, two centuries in diverse matters with little to show for it. On the other hand, they've done much better by blackmailing the states to adopt a state statute reflecting a federal desire by the threatened withholding of federal dollars of some sort or another. And that's where the automobile analogy comes in.

One should support the NRA if only to make such nuisances as this Bill go away. It will go nowhere but, it should not have taken 39 posts for us to recognize it's unconstitutionality nor should it ever have made it out of the fertile imagination of it's author or committee. Suffice it to say that all concerned should understand our Constitution better.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.”
Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2009
N0NJY's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 795
Rep Power: 4
N0NJY is on a distinguished road
Quote:
One should support the NRA if only to make such nuisances as this Bill go away. It will go nowhere but, it should not have taken 39 posts for us to recognize it's unconstitutionality nor should it ever have made it out of the fertile imagination of it's author or committee. Suffice it to say that all concerned should understand our Constitution better.
Most of us never missed the point. It is plainly obvious to most. It's the folks that argue that 'gun control' is a good thing that do not get it, and have to have it explained over and over.
__________________
Rick Donaldson, NØNJY

moˈloːn laˈbe!

It's better to be hated for who you are, than to be loved for who you're not.

Let those winds of change blow over my head,
I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead - Jimmy Buffet
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2009
N0NJY's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 795
Rep Power: 4
N0NJY is on a distinguished road
NRA-ILA :: Anti-Gun Deception On The Senate Floor

Friday, January 30, 2009

As we reported last week, legislation to require a federal license to possess any detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, or any handgun, has been introduced in Congress. Bills to re-impose the federal "assault weapon" and "large" magazine ban, or to impose a much broader ban, have been introduced in Congress since 2003, and will likely be introduced in the current Congress soon.

Already, the deliberate deceptions we heard from anti-gunners previously are resurfacing. Anti-gun Sen. Carl Levin, (D-Mich.), said Thursday on the floor of the Senate that "assault weapons" are "capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute" and that they are "once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods."

Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

Many fully-automatic firearms can fire 10 rounds in a second, which theoretically would work out to 600 rounds per minute, but they cannot be reloaded fast enough to achieve anything near that rate in reality. But we are not talking about fully-automatic firearms—we're talking about semi-automatics, and the difference between them need not be explained here.

"Pervading our streets?" Anti-gun lawmakers swore up and down that once the "assault weapon" ban expired, the murder rate would go through the roof. Well, the ban expired in 2004 and since then, the murder rate has gone down to a 43-year low.

The anti-gunners think they can revive this bogus issue, and maybe they can; they will no doubt try. But Congress required a study of the 1994 ban, and the study concluded, "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a small fraction of gun murders." Violent crime was going down before the ban, and it has continued to go down after the ban. If the issue is looked at objectively, it should be over, done with, water under the bridge. The ban should never have been imposed in the first place, let alone be imposed again or ever expanded.


And certainly guns should not be banned on the basis of nonsense like Sen. Levin's speech, and other deliberate deception perpetuated by gun ban groups.
Deliberate deception such as:
  • A folding stock makes a rifle concealable, as if it were a pocket knife. But anyone who knows anything about gun laws knows that federal law requires a rifle to be 26 inches long, regardless of its stock, and a 26-inch-long rifle is not concealable.
  • A pistol grip is designed to allow a rifle to be fired "from the hip." But the 90 million pistols owned by the American people all have pistol grips, and they aren't designed to be fired "from the hip." Besides that, the fact that a rifle has a shoulder stock and sights mounted on the barrel proves that it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.
  • Magazines designed to hold more than 10 rounds are not useful for self-defense. If they really believe that, let them propose to prohibit the military and police from having pistol magazines that hold 12, 15, and 17 rounds.
  • These guns are "high-powered." Next time an anti-gunner calls a gun "high-powered," ask him to name one gun that is low-powered. They even call .22 rimfires "high-powered," when they want to brand a .22 as a so-called "assault weapon."
NRA members who own AR-15s and other so-called "assault weapons," you are not alone. There are nearly two million AR-15s in our country, the same number of M1s, the same number of M1 Carbines, and many more Mini-14s, semi-automatic shotguns, pump-action shotguns, and all the other guns the anti-gunner want to call "assault weapon." Countless millions of American own handguns that use magazines of over 10 rounds.

Our challenge is to coalesce these Americans into a political force that will make anti-gun lawmakers' heads swim. When they repeat gun ban groups' deliberate deceptions, we must tell the truth; not some of the time, but all of the time! But we cannot wait for them to act, and then only respond in defense. We must be out front. When we carry our message, we must do so confident in the knowledge that we are doing so in a manner that respects our fellow citizens, and their right to disagree--a way of doing business that is alien to our opponents--and that our arguments are based in logic and fact, not deceit.
__________________
Rick Donaldson, NØNJY

moˈloːn laˈbe!

It's better to be hated for who you are, than to be loved for who you're not.

Let those winds of change blow over my head,
I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead - Jimmy Buffet
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2009
N0NJY's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 795
Rep Power: 4
N0NJY is on a distinguished road
Gun Law Update: Gun-Rights Testing Planned

Posted by SOF Editor on January 21st, 2009 No Comments

By Alan Korwin

HR 45 — Gun Rights Licensing Test

Illinois congressman Bobby Rush, from Obama’s home state and with a voting record on gun ownership as bad as Obama’s, introduced a bill on the first day of the 111th Congress that shows what we can expect. If we don’t defeat this bill, and others expected to follow it, gun owners will lose guns and the industry will suffer harm beyond description.

Under HR 45, if you can’t pass a complex test written by the U.S. Attorney General (described in detail below), pay the tax, give up fingerprints and a biometric-capable photo of yourself (that can be turned into a digital facial-recognition number and used as a de facto national ID), every gun you own will become contraband and subject to confiscation, while you stand trial before imprisonment. You’d think Bobby, a former black panther, would know better.

Your rights will have an expiration date, and if you screw up and miss it, you’ll be in the same mess as people who can’t pass the test. Can you say “unconstitutional”?

Do you think these “gun bigots” care?

Now that the Supreme Court has made it clear in the Heller case that government can’t ban guns, the Brady’s have stopped saying they want to ban guns. So the virtually treasonous Bobby Rush bill doesn’t ban guns, it bans gun owners, maybe by the millions. How many gun owners read poorly or don’t test well? How many can’t explain local, state and federal gun laws? They’d become prohibited possessors under HR 45. Are there any limits to what the AG can put on the test? The bill doesn’t mention any — it gives the AG a free hand to include anything.

Had enough? HR 45 has an innocent-looking line that says ’strike the second sentence of 18 USC 926(a)’. That’s the line that says the federal government cannot make a central registry of gun owners.

The anti-rights people have to repeal that line, because Bobby’s bill flat-out creates a central gun registry. Every gun owner must be registered to keep on possessing the guns they already own, and any transfer of any kind must be registered as well. The mark of the beast is upon us, to apply a metaphor.

See the bill for yourself (click “Bill Number” and enter “HR 45″):
THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Read the gun-ban list the antis have already published:
Gun Law Update 010509
Get a book on how you can be more effectively politically:
How-To-Defend-Your-Rights Books Bloomfield Press Books
Here’s my detailed analysis of the bill, in plain English.


HR 45
The bill starts with a statement of purpose that says: ” because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce.” Basically, this eliminates the Tenth Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Constitution can’t legally be amended by statute. Is that enough to seek Mr. Rush’s removal from office? I won’t bore you with the other “purposes” which are as bad or worse.


Only “qualifying firearms” are affected. That means any handgun, or any semi-auto firearm that has a removable magazine (what they call a ” detachable ammunition feeding device”).

After the bill becomes law (IF it becomes law), it’s illegal for you to have or get those firearms, even if you already own them, without a special federal license. There are grace periods up to two years to register yourself once the law is passed.

Do you see how clever this is? You cold-dead-fingers guys can keep your guns if you like, refuse to register yourselves, and then you’re subject to arrest on the spot. If you go anywhere with your guns — to the range, a store, a gunsmith, a friend’s house, hunting, competition — and you’re spotted, you go straight to jail. If you’re already on a list (can anyone say “carry permit” or “hunting license”?) and you don’t sign up, well, just connect those dots. Where does the cold-dead-fingers part come into play? I’ll bet the ranges will start requiring you to show your papers before you can hit the line.

To get the license you must “submit to the Attorney General” (they chose that phrase right by golly): a passport-type photo, identifying info, any name you have ever used or ever been known by (I have nicknames, pen names, stage names, omitting any presumably violates the statute) a thumbprint, certification that any firearms will be “safely” stored and out of possession of people under 18, authorization to give up any mental health records, and a certificate that you passed a government-run test.

The test must include knowledge of: safe storage, safe handling, use of firearms at home, the risks of firearms at home, local state and federal legal requirements for firearms, reporting requirements for firearms, and ANY other subjects the AG decides are appropriate. You date and sign the submission, making it perjury if your info is inaccurate.

I’m skipping some details on who can accept the form, time periods for filing it and similar red tape on this 4,600 word bill. The AG “shall” issue the license if you pass the test and do everything else, and also “shall” charge you a tax for the privilege of getting your rights licensed, up to $25 at present. This gets you a tamper-resistant photo ID card with your official number, address, date of birth, signature and the expiration date of your “rights” (about five years, it’s complicated). There’s a renewal procedure (it’s complicated) and no apparent limit on the renewal tax you will be charged (the AG gets power to control the details).

The license can be revoked for cause of course, and the AG “shall” make sure you give it up if it’s revoked.

Once this thing is in place, it’s illegal to transfer or receive any affected firearm (all handguns and any semi-auto with a magazine) without the license. Transfers can only be made to or from a licensed dealer, who has to jump through hoops and file papers, and has 14 days to get that done (a waiting period on the dealer’s shoulders), to get government approvals and authorization numbers.

The dealer must send the feds the gun name and/or model number, maker, serial number, your license number, name, address and transfer date, which the feds must store in a “Federal Record of Sale System,” a permanent national gun registry.

This needs to be said verbatim: “(c) Elimination of Prohibition on Establishment of System of Registration — Section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence.” That sentence says the feds can’t register the firearms Americans own:
“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [1986] may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.” The Bobby Rush bill says kiss that sentence and its extremely crucial protections goodbye.

There are a few small exceptions for an undefined “infrequent” firearm gift, bequest or intestate succession among parents, their kids and grandparents and grandkids, and also for lending a firearm ” for any lawful purpose for not more than 30 days between persons who are personally known to each other.” Sloppy language in this part of the bill bans the transfer of any firearm (not just “qualifying” firearms) between anyone without going through the hoops.

If you lose a handgun or magazine-fed semi-auto, or if one is stolen from you — you’ve broken the law if you don’t report that to the AG within 72 hours.

If you own such guns, change your address and don’t notify the AG within 60 days — you’ve committed a crime. In other words, they track you non-stop or you’re subject to arrest. No victim, no harm, no foul, no evil, just government placing you in jail for failure to comply. Bobby Rush thinks this is good law, a legitimate use of government.

If you keep in your home a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammo for it, and a person under 18 gets it and harms someone with it — you’ve committed a crime. There are some flimsy exceptions (like you know or should reasonably know federal and state gun law for kids) and of course, all the “proper” authorities — federal, state, local, military, elected, appointed, even employees of government on the job are exempted — twice. Bobby Rush says OK for thee but not for me, tee hee.

Lengthy penalty sections include two-, five- and ten-year sentences and fines for paperwork violations, possession violations, transfer violations, child-access violations, safe-storage violations and of course, failure to pass the test if you still keep your guns.

The bill ends with sweeping powers for the Attorney General that could be interpreted to mean almost anything, so the details I’ve described might be little more than a smokescreen! For instance: “The Attorney General may issue an order prohibiting the sale or transfer of any firearm that the Attorney General finds has been transferred or distributed in violation of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or a regulation issued under this Act.”

There’s plenty of that in here, plus endless inspection powers, injunctive powers and even, “shall issue regulations… as the Attorney General determines to be reasonably necessary to reduce or prevent deaths or injuries resulting from qualifying firearms…” Is the AG someone we can trust? Or is it someone with utter contempt for the right to keep and bear arms? If it’s Eric Holder, Obama’s nominee, we get a guy who told the Supreme Court that a total gun ban in your own home is just fine and doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights.

Oh, and one final kick in the ribs. Federalism, the idea that states have powers the feds don’t, could get in the way. So the bill makes it clear that “…this Act may not be construed to preempt any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision of that State… except to the extent that the provision of law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act…” I am not making this up. The hubris and audacity of this bill’s author is monumental. My lawyer friends will tell me that legal mumbo-jumbo has become SOP, as the feds usurp any remaining crumbs of your state’s legitimate powers.

Maybe you’ve noticed that virtually none of this addresses criminals or crimes. Innocent gun owners are the target. This is about controlling the public and its private constitutionally protected property. Criminals are guaranteed to ignore the entire plan, and in fact, criminals CANNOT apply, since they can’t possess firearms in the first place. Even if criminals could apply, they’re protected from incriminating themselves by the Fifth Amendment, so they never would apply.

The bill of course makes no mention of this. That’s my job. And people tell me I’m paranoid, that gun bans are just a delusional fantasy of the wacko fringe. What does that say about Bobby Rush from Illinois, the perpetrator of this travesty. He and every co-sponsor he can find should be removed from office. Wherever he appears, people should rise and turn their backs on him as a gesture of disgrace.
__________________
Rick Donaldson, NØNJY

moˈloːn laˈbe!

It's better to be hated for who you are, than to be loved for who you're not.

Let those winds of change blow over my head,
I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead - Jimmy Buffet
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2009
hellosailor's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,104
Rep Power: 8
hellosailor will become famous soon enough hellosailor will become famous soon enough
Let's not forget, the term "assault weapon" is only defined and used by politicians and Nooze Media. Neither NATO nor the DoD recognizes that term.

I think we need a couple of governors with balls. Legally, if any one of them calls up a state militia for a full alert--they can order (ORDER) all of the militia to muster and carry weapons of a proper military nature. That would mean, typically, all citizens ages 16/18-45 of that state, required to carry arms until further notice, or face a court martial in time of emergency. (We're not at war, but we are under emergency declarations.)

It only takes ONE.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2009
N0NJY's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 795
Rep Power: 4
N0NJY is on a distinguished road
I have a "stick", a wooden sword. I can use it quite well as an "assault weapon" (trained in sword fighting many years ago.... )

I don't consider a gun an "assault weapon".

Unfortunately, there are too many people who don't understand the concept of "militia" and would refuse to go/show up anyway, after all they believe that it is the "National Guard"
__________________
Rick Donaldson, NØNJY

moˈloːn laˈbe!

It's better to be hated for who you are, than to be loved for who you're not.

Let those winds of change blow over my head,
I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead - Jimmy Buffet
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2009
N0NJY's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 795
Rep Power: 4
N0NJY is on a distinguished road
California: Statewide Ban on Lead Ammo

Coming to a city or state near you.

------------------------------

California: Statewide Ban on Lead Ammunition Could Be Around the Corner!
-----------
NRA-ILA :: California: Statewide Ban on Lead Ammunition Could Be Around the Corner!

Friday, February 06, 2009

Please Contact the Fish and Game Commission Today!
The California Fish and Game Commission is considering a statewide ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting. Two years ago, a bill was signed into law that imposed a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting in areas occupied by the California condor. Through its hunting regulations, the Commission extended the ban to include .22 rimfire ammunition and expanded the boundaries where the ban applies. With this track record, the Commission is likely to be receptive to carrying the ban to the borders of the state.

From the beginning, proponents of the current ban have wanted to ban lead ammunition statewide. The California condor was simply being used by the anti-hunters and anti-gunners to carry out this agenda. They have already achieved a partial ban. The next step is to take it statewide. If they are successful, they will push to ban the use of lead ammunition for everyone, not just hunters.

There is no scientific evidence that lead ammunition is the source of lead affecting the health of condors released to the wild. There is no scientific evidence that lead ammunition is a risk to human health and the environment in California. What is evident is that there is a group of special interests that have friends on the Commission who will not stop until the most affordable, available, and ballistically superior ammunition is banned in your state. They know the damage that such a ban will do to both hunting and shooting participation.
__________________
Rick Donaldson, NØNJY

moˈloːn laˈbe!

It's better to be hated for who you are, than to be loved for who you're not.

Let those winds of change blow over my head,
I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead - Jimmy Buffet
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:26 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012