just heard a rumor from the total firearms manager...

[eastmeyers]

imported post

FYI lil freak, IMHO these guys are just screwin with you.

On a side note, take a second look at the Marine Corps, if you REALLY wanna learn your way around a rifle, things arnt how they used to be. If you join the Army you will be basicly trained in the area of your MOS, in the Marines every Marine is a Riflemen.

Good luck,

God Bless

 

[Guest]

imported post

What's the difference between a banana and a Marine?

A banana starts out green and hard and then turns yellow and soft.

:celebrate

 

[Guest]

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

What's the difference between a banana and a Marine?

A banana starts out green and hard and then turns yellow and soft.

:celebrate

http://www.navy.mil/swf/mmu/mmplyr.asp?id=14033

http://www.navy.mil/swf/mmu/mmplyr.asp?id=14034

 

[marshaul]

imported post

lil_freak_66 wrote:

also,if you thought i was truly serious about it...then you got another thing comin

If you think X, you've got another think coming.

Sorry, that one bugs me.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Oh BTW Pat, did I ever tell you that you're an ass?

 

[7th District]

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

http://www.navy.mil/swf/mmu/mmplyr.asp?id=14033

http://www.navy.mil/swf/mmu/mmplyr.asp?id=14034

Some of it has changed, but a lot stays the same. Thanks for posting.

Semper Fi

 

[Guest]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Oh BTW Pat, did I ever tell you that you're an ass?

No, not in this thread.

 

[Hombre]

imported post

James_Liv_Co wrote:

mikestilly wrote

Secondly licensing, creating laws, revoking laws are not done by ballot initiatives. That leaves it short of reality.

Yes, they can be done by ballot initiative. You have to pay attention in Government class.

Michigan is one of the states where anyone who can gather slightly over 300,000 valid signatures can put a ballot initiative on a ballot. For a statute, if someone submits slightly over 300,000 valid signatures, then the Legislature has 40 days to either adopt the measure as law, or, if they either reject it, or fail to act, then it goes to the voters. Then, a simple majority is all that is needed to pass.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Michigan

If they wanted to run it in 2010, it would have to have signatures collected, and submitted before May 10th of this year. If they wanted it in November of 2011, they have until May of 2011 to file. They would need to get 304,000 signatures within a 180 period to do so.

Not an impossible task, depending on if there is money behind signature gathering.

I would vote "yes" on banning OC just due to the simple FACT that it appears that OC'ers are anti-law enforcement and like to argue and bait cops across the state. JMO

 

[T Vance]

imported post

.

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

This is why we have a constitution

If the police would honor their own oaths, this wouldnt be a problem. We dont bait cops, but if they do cross lines, then we have the other constitutional right to petition the government for redress of greivences. Wouldnt it be easier to get rid of that right?

 

[Hombre]

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

This is why we have a constitution

If the police would honor their own oaths, this wouldnt be a problem. We dont bait cops, but if they do cross lines, then we have the other constitutional right to petition the government for redress of greivences. Wouldnt it be easier to get rid of that right?

You know nothing of honoring oaths. To assume that other people DON'T honor the oath of office is ignorant.

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

To experience is not to assume.

I know more about them than you think.

 

[sasha601]

imported post

Yes, most OC fox carry audio and video recorders. But why is this baiting? This is protection against unlawful acts of a police officer. Also, exposing poice ulawful behavior is healthy. It keeps police corruption in check.

Hombre1 wrote:

James_Liv_Co wrote:

mikestilly wrote

Secondly licensing, creating laws, revoking laws are not done by ballot initiatives. That leaves it short of reality.

Yes, they can be done by ballot initiative.  You have to pay attention in Government class.  

Michigan is one of the states where anyone who can gather slightly over 300,000 valid signatures can put a ballot initiative on a ballot.  For a statute, if someone submits slightly over 300,000 valid signatures, then the Legislature has 40 days to either adopt the measure as law, or, if they either reject it, or fail to act, then it goes to the voters. Then, a simple majority is all that is needed to pass.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Michigan

If they wanted to run it in 2010, it would have to have signatures collected, and submitted before May 10th of this year.   If they wanted it in November of 2011, they have until May of 2011 to file.  They would need to get 304,000 signatures within a 180 period to do so.

Not an impossible task, depending on if there is money behind signature gathering.

I would vote "yes" on banning OC just due to the simple FACT that it appears that OC'ers are anti-law enforcement and like to argue and bait cops across the state.  JMO

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

This is why we have a constitution

If the police would honor their own oaths, this wouldnt be a problem. We dont bait cops, but if they do cross lines, then we have the other constitutional right to petition the government for redress of greivences. Wouldnt it be easier to get rid of that right?

You know nothing of honoring oaths.  To assume that other people DON'T honor the oath of office is ignorant.

To believe that every officer honors their oath is about as ignorant as it gets..

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

Hombre1 wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

This is why we have a constitution

If the police would honor their own oaths, this wouldnt be a problem. We dont bait cops, but if they do cross lines, then we have the other constitutional right to petition the government for redress of greivences. Wouldnt it be easier to get rid of that right?

You know nothing of honoring oaths. To assume that other people DON'T honor the oath of office is ignorant.

To believe that every officer honors their oath is about as ignorant as it gets..

Apparently so.http://twitter.com/InjusticeNews

 

[Hombre]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

Hombre1 wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

This is why we have a constitution

If the police would honor their own oaths, this wouldnt be a problem. We dont bait cops, but if they do cross lines, then we have the other constitutional right to petition the government for redress of greivences. Wouldnt it be easier to get rid of that right?

You know nothing of honoring oaths. To assume that other people DON'T honor the oath of office is ignorant.

To believe that every officer honors their oath is about as ignorant as it gets..

Apparently so.http://twitter.com/InjusticeNews

My favorite.:lol:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/6895404.html

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

I would vote "yes" on banning OC just due to the simple FACT that it appears that OC'ers are anti-law enforcement and like to argue and bait cops across the state.  JMO

I would vote "yes" on banning cops just due to the simple FACT that it appears that law enfarcement is anti-rights and likes to bait law abiding citizens across the country.

 

[stainless1911]

imported post

I would agree, as long as we can carry guns, we really dont need cops anyhow.

 

[jeremiahJohnson]

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

James_Liv_Co wrote:

mikestilly wrote

Secondly licensing, creating laws, revoking laws are not done by ballot initiatives. That leaves it short of reality.

Yes, they can be done by ballot initiative. You have to pay attention in Government class.

Michigan is one of the states where anyone who can gather slightly over 300,000 valid signatures can put a ballot initiative on a ballot. For a statute, if someone submits slightly over 300,000 valid signatures, then the Legislature has 40 days to either adopt the measure as law, or, if they either reject it, or fail to act, then it goes to the voters. Then, a simple majority is all that is needed to pass.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Michigan

If they wanted to run it in 2010, it would have to have signatures collected, and submitted before May 10th of this year. If they wanted it in November of 2011, they have until May of 2011 to file. They would need to get 304,000 signatures within a 180 period to do so.

Not an impossible task, depending on if there is money behind signature gathering.

I would vote "yes" on banning OC just due to the simple FACT that it appears that OC'ers are anti-law enforcement and like to argue and bait cops across the state. JMO

Wow generalizations of OC'ers...Nothin wrong with defying law! if i remember correctly this is how law is changed! um if a right is protected by constitution has to be amended. An initiative may make it to a vote but it won't stand up to the constitutionality!

 

[wally1120]

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

I would vote "yes" on banning OC just due to the simple FACT that it appears that OC'ers are anti-law enforcement and like to argue and bait cops across the state. JMO

WHAT? I have been OCing for almost a year now, And I have been detained by the police once. I don`t go OCing just to bait cops, I OC because that is the only way I can legally carry right now. True I don`t like police, But I am not out to just make there day a living hell either.