Gun control
08-04-2005, 05:05 PM
#16
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some more statistics on the issue...
I was riding to work yesterday when I observed a female driver cut right in front of a pickup truck, causing the driver to have to drive on to the shoulder to avoid hitting her. This evidently angered the driver enough that he hung his arm out his window and gave the woman the finger....
"Man, that guy is stupid," I thought to myself. I ALWAYS smile nicely and wave in a sheepish manner whenever a female does anything to me in traffic, and here's why:
I drive 48 miles each way every day to work. That's 96 miles each day. Of these, 16 miles each way is bumper-to-bumper. Most of the bumper-to-bumper is on an 8 lane highway.
There are 7 cars every 40 feet for 32 miles. That works out to be 982 cars every mile, or 31,424 cars. Even though the rest of the 32 miles is not bumper-to-bumper, I figure I pass at least another 4000 cars.
That brings the number to something like 36,000 cars that I pass every day. Statistically, females drive half of these. That's 18,000 women drivers! In any given group of females, 1 in 28 has PMS. That's 642.
According to Cosmopolitan, 70% describe their love life as dissatisfying or unrewarding. That's 449. According to the National Institute of Health, 22% of all females have seriously considered suicide or homicide. That's 98. And 34% describe men as their biggest problem. That's 33. According to the National Rifle Association, 5% of all females carry weapons and this number is increasing.
That means that EVERY SINGLE DAY, I drive past at least one female that has a lousy love life, thinks men are her biggest problem, has seriously considered suicide or homicide, has PMS, and is armed.
Give her the finger? I don't think so
I was riding to work yesterday when I observed a female driver cut right in front of a pickup truck, causing the driver to have to drive on to the shoulder to avoid hitting her. This evidently angered the driver enough that he hung his arm out his window and gave the woman the finger....
"Man, that guy is stupid," I thought to myself. I ALWAYS smile nicely and wave in a sheepish manner whenever a female does anything to me in traffic, and here's why:
I drive 48 miles each way every day to work. That's 96 miles each day. Of these, 16 miles each way is bumper-to-bumper. Most of the bumper-to-bumper is on an 8 lane highway.
There are 7 cars every 40 feet for 32 miles. That works out to be 982 cars every mile, or 31,424 cars. Even though the rest of the 32 miles is not bumper-to-bumper, I figure I pass at least another 4000 cars.
That brings the number to something like 36,000 cars that I pass every day. Statistically, females drive half of these. That's 18,000 women drivers! In any given group of females, 1 in 28 has PMS. That's 642.
According to Cosmopolitan, 70% describe their love life as dissatisfying or unrewarding. That's 449. According to the National Institute of Health, 22% of all females have seriously considered suicide or homicide. That's 98. And 34% describe men as their biggest problem. That's 33. According to the National Rifle Association, 5% of all females carry weapons and this number is increasing.
That means that EVERY SINGLE DAY, I drive past at least one female that has a lousy love life, thinks men are her biggest problem, has seriously considered suicide or homicide, has PMS, and is armed.
Give her the finger? I don't think so
08-04-2005, 07:09 PM
#17
Chapter President
Originally posted by hovisimo
there should be a rule against posting email forwards. this is probably the 37th time i've read this. the logic and statistics are a stretch.
there should be a rule against posting email forwards. this is probably the 37th time i've read this. the logic and statistics are a stretch.
08-04-2005, 10:54 PM
#19
Registered User
I wonder how many realize that anyone that has ever (ever in their life) been charged with a misdemeanor weather convicted or not, even if juvenile, bad driving record, wife made complaints, etc... will not be authorized by the FBI background check. For the most part they will not be refused a purchase, but they will not be authorized. Some dealers will go with the three day exception and sell the piece to they anyway, but a lot will not. See even if very legal to purchase and own a weapon, you cannot go to the store and buy one.
Once being denied an authorization, you become one of the statistics of the gun control freaks as "a criminal that was prevented from obtaining a gun" Of course this proves the system works. Also not asked is if the gun is an assault weapon or whatever. Only if it is a long gun or pistol.
How do you get around this? You can send a money order for $18.00 along with finger prints secured from a police station, and your record as you know it exists. You send all this in and they will tell you why you were not authorized. Of course they will add what you sent to the records in case they missed something. Based on their results you can then start legal proceedings to get the record straight, allowing you have have your constitutional rights.
On the other hand, you can just buy privately.
edit: I need to clarify the not authorized..... the form has three results, Authorized, Denied, and Wait. What we are talking about is the Wait result. After three days with no word from the FBI, the weapon may be sold. It may be retrieved if the FBI later denies the sale. Of course at your loss. They are supposed to produce a result inside of two weeks but that is generally not the case, once in Wait, it stays there.
Once being denied an authorization, you become one of the statistics of the gun control freaks as "a criminal that was prevented from obtaining a gun" Of course this proves the system works. Also not asked is if the gun is an assault weapon or whatever. Only if it is a long gun or pistol.
How do you get around this? You can send a money order for $18.00 along with finger prints secured from a police station, and your record as you know it exists. You send all this in and they will tell you why you were not authorized. Of course they will add what you sent to the records in case they missed something. Based on their results you can then start legal proceedings to get the record straight, allowing you have have your constitutional rights.
On the other hand, you can just buy privately.
edit: I need to clarify the not authorized..... the form has three results, Authorized, Denied, and Wait. What we are talking about is the Wait result. After three days with no word from the FBI, the weapon may be sold. It may be retrieved if the FBI later denies the sale. Of course at your loss. They are supposed to produce a result inside of two weeks but that is generally not the case, once in Wait, it stays there.
08-06-2005, 10:56 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta, CANADA
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's some more Canadian Liberal mis-government: A couple of years ago they introduces a "gun registry' program that was supposed to cost us tax-payers
$100 Million. The idea was to have a voluntary (?) gun registry by people who owned any type of gun, mostly hunting weapons and handguns, for some reason assault weapons are not all that common up here. Now its a good theory, register all the guns people want the government to KNOW about, and I'm positive every criminal in Canada with a stolen or illegal weapon rushed right down to their local police station to let the boys in blue know about it. Now it gets better. A final tally of over $2 BILLION, the registry is not up and running, they were auditted and can't find where over half of that money went. not done yet. IF for sme reason you were found with a gun that was not registered, the Crown Prosecutor will not file charges due to several incomplete proceedures in the registry act. Money well spent again by our federal Fiberal Govt. We have a bumper sticker out here in Alberta, its says, edit OFF A LIBERAL, BUY A GUN.
edit Straight.
$100 Million. The idea was to have a voluntary (?) gun registry by people who owned any type of gun, mostly hunting weapons and handguns, for some reason assault weapons are not all that common up here. Now its a good theory, register all the guns people want the government to KNOW about, and I'm positive every criminal in Canada with a stolen or illegal weapon rushed right down to their local police station to let the boys in blue know about it. Now it gets better. A final tally of over $2 BILLION, the registry is not up and running, they were auditted and can't find where over half of that money went. not done yet. IF for sme reason you were found with a gun that was not registered, the Crown Prosecutor will not file charges due to several incomplete proceedures in the registry act. Money well spent again by our federal Fiberal Govt. We have a bumper sticker out here in Alberta, its says, edit OFF A LIBERAL, BUY A GUN.
edit Straight.
08-07-2005, 03:07 AM
#21
Registered User
Originally posted by crobtex
Just curious......how do you know they are a stretch?
Just curious......how do you know they are a stretch?
I was happy that she crossed a few lanes and got off on a boulivard.... 
08-07-2005, 08:52 AM
#22
Got this from Henry Heymering, a Concealed Carry guy from MSI.
They make sense to me? I particularly like the 911 one.
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Glock: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
15. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
16. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
17. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
They make sense to me? I particularly like the 911 one.
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Glock: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
15. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
16. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
17. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
08-07-2005, 08:53 AM
#23
Another one......
Monday, August 1, 2005; 10:37 PM
IDABEL,Okla. -- The National Rifle Association began a boycott of
ConocoPhillips Co. Monday over the energy giant's attempt to block a
state law preventing employers from firing workers who keep guns in
their cars on company lots.
"Across the country, we're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of
what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment
rights," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.
LaPierre was in southeastern Oklahoma for a rally to support employees
who were fired by Weyerhaeuser Inc. for keeping guns stored in
vehicles parked at work.
Calls to ConocoPhillips for comment were not immediately returned
Monday.
After the firings at Weyerhaeuser, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a
bill to prevent such terminations. ConocoPhillips filed a federal
lawsuit to block the measure.
The energy company has more than 3,100 workers in Oklahoma, the
majority at the company's refinery in Ponca City.
LaPierre called on gun owners and consumers to boycott all Conoco and
Phillips 66 products, and asked Conoco and Phillips 66 retailers to
urge the corporation to withdraw the federal lawsuit.
IDABEL,Okla. -- The National Rifle Association began a boycott of
ConocoPhillips Co. Monday over the energy giant's attempt to block a
state law preventing employers from firing workers who keep guns in
their cars on company lots.
"Across the country, we're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of
what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment
rights," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.
LaPierre was in southeastern Oklahoma for a rally to support employees
who were fired by Weyerhaeuser Inc. for keeping guns stored in
vehicles parked at work.
Calls to ConocoPhillips for comment were not immediately returned
Monday.
After the firings at Weyerhaeuser, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a
bill to prevent such terminations. ConocoPhillips filed a federal
lawsuit to block the measure.
The energy company has more than 3,100 workers in Oklahoma, the
majority at the company's refinery in Ponca City.
LaPierre called on gun owners and consumers to boycott all Conoco and
Phillips 66 products, and asked Conoco and Phillips 66 retailers to
urge the corporation to withdraw the federal lawsuit.
08-07-2005, 09:21 AM
#24
Chapter President
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Eagle. ID
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....SNEAKY Gun Control
I receive updates / bulletins from the JPFO crew, and am posting this one for everyone to see. Please take the time to read it, and if you feel so compelled, CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE and let him know how you feel about the proposed legislation. For those who want the "short" version: Senate bill 397, purportedly written to protect gun manufacturers form frivolous lawsuits, has a sneaky rider or provision, which will, in efffect, allow the ATF (F-Troop) and Attorney General to ban virtually ALL centerfire ammunition as "Armor Piercing"; The full text of the "alert" is:
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 8:42 AM
Subject: JPFO ALERT: IS S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?
> ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
> America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
>
> August 4, 2005
>
> JPFO ALERT: IS S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?
>
> You may have heard a lot of praise for S. 397, which last
> week passed the U.S. Senate. This bill is supposedly
> intended to protect firearms manufacturers against nuisance
> lawsuits.
>
> There's been minor grumbling about the "safety lock"
> provisions in the proposed legislation, but otherwise S.
> 397 has had overwhelming support.
>
> Just about the time we were wondering why even some usually
> gun-unfriendly senators like Herb Kohl (D-WI) were in favor
> of this bill, an alert Congresswatcher contacted us with a
> warning.
>
> "The only thing I see that's good about the bill," this
> sharp-eyed observer wrote, "is that it hasn't become law."
>
> After taking a closer look, we agree.
>
> As our correspondent pointed out, the real problem lies in
> Sec. 6 "Armor Piercing Ammunition."
>
> THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE
> BANNED
>
> Here's how.
>
> Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell
> or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:
>
> 1) For the use of state and federal government departments
> or agencies.
>
> 2) For export
>
> 3) For Attorney General-approved testing.
>
> Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who
> possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission
> of a crime.
>
> Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this
> part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a
> study to determine whether a uniform standard for the
> testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."
>
> NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is
> "armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor
> plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The
> tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone
> knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE
> AMMO WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammo.
>
> We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we
> received was well-taken or whether this was simply a
> misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:
>
> "Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is
> not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of
> test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests). If
> the test were on 1 inch "rolled homogeneous armor plate"
> then there would be no problem. If the test is a level I
> "vest" material, then EVERYTHING including .22 longs, are
> going to be illegal ammo.
>
> "The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE
> person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. (Just like the
> current mess with [the sloppy, no-standards testing
> practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
> Firearms].)
>
> "I figured it was a matter of time before they got around
> to figuring out: Control the ammo and you control the guns.
> Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammo,
> very close to the black market for marijuana, in size,
> scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing
> recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing).
> Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal
> manufacturing of "terrorist material."
>
> "This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask
> myself: Why the continued attack and obvious methodical
> disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer:
> control and power."
>
> Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault
> weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes"
> have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key
> words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now
> appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is
> likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans
> of their rights.
>
> We should all be asking some serious questions about the
> real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes
> law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so
> desperate that they would attempt to slip such a
> potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun
> bill?
>
> The Liberty Crew
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 8:42 AM
Subject: JPFO ALERT: IS S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?
> ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
> America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
>
> August 4, 2005
>
> JPFO ALERT: IS S. 397 A TROJAN HORSE?
>
> You may have heard a lot of praise for S. 397, which last
> week passed the U.S. Senate. This bill is supposedly
> intended to protect firearms manufacturers against nuisance
> lawsuits.
>
> There's been minor grumbling about the "safety lock"
> provisions in the proposed legislation, but otherwise S.
> 397 has had overwhelming support.
>
> Just about the time we were wondering why even some usually
> gun-unfriendly senators like Herb Kohl (D-WI) were in favor
> of this bill, an alert Congresswatcher contacted us with a
> warning.
>
> "The only thing I see that's good about the bill," this
> sharp-eyed observer wrote, "is that it hasn't become law."
>
> After taking a closer look, we agree.
>
> As our correspondent pointed out, the real problem lies in
> Sec. 6 "Armor Piercing Ammunition."
>
> THIS SECTION COULD ALLOW ALL CENTERFIRE RIFLE AMMO TO BE
> BANNED
>
> Here's how.
>
> Part One of Sec. 6 makes it illegal to make, import, sell
> or deliver any "armor-piercing" ammunition EXCEPT:
>
> 1) For the use of state and federal government departments
> or agencies.
>
> 2) For export
>
> 3) For Attorney General-approved testing.
>
> Part Two "enhances" criminal sentences for anyone who
> possesses "armor-piercing" ammunition during the commission
> of a crime.
>
> Part Three is where the trap is really sprung. Because this
> part instructs the U.S. Attorney General to "conduct a
> study to determine whether a uniform standard for the
> testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible."
>
> NOTE WELL: The tests to determine whether or not ammo is
> "armor piercing" are NOT to be conducted against armor
> plate, such as that used on military combat vehicles. The
> tests are to be conducted against body armor. And as anyone
> knowledgeable about firearms knows, VIRTUALLY ALL RIFLE
> AMMO WILL PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. So will some pistol ammo.
>
> We asked firearms maker Len Savage if the warning we
> received was well-taken or whether this was simply a
> misinterpretation of the proposed law. Here's Len's reply:
>
> "Yes. This gives the A.G. the power to say what is and is
> not "armor piercing." There is no language for what type of
> test is to be conducted (other than ballistic vests). If
> the test were on 1 inch "rolled homogeneous armor plate"
> then there would be no problem. If the test is a level I
> "vest" material, then EVERYTHING including .22 longs, are
> going to be illegal ammo.
>
> "The bill would effectively give the power to decide to ONE
> person. NO vote, NO appeal, NO rights. (Just like the
> current mess with [the sloppy, no-standards testing
> practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
> Firearms].)
>
> "I figured it was a matter of time before they got around
> to figuring out: Control the ammo and you control the guns.
> Of course there would be born a "black market" for ammo,
> very close to the black market for marijuana, in size,
> scope, and risks. Next will be the sentencing
> recommendations for possession, and distributing (dealing).
> Components will be viewed as constructive intent of illegal
> manufacturing of "terrorist material."
>
> "This is a dangerous path for America. I am forced to ask
> myself: Why the continued attack and obvious methodical
> disarming of American Citizens? There is only one answer:
> control and power."
>
> Just as "Saturday-Night specials," "military-style assault
> weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "sporting purposes"
> have all been used as deceptive, emotionally loaded key
> words to justify regulations and outright bans, it now
> appears that the designation "armor-piercing ammunition" is
> likely to be mis-applied in an attempt to deprive Americans
> of their rights.
>
> We should all be asking some serious questions about the
> real impact S. 397 will have on our freedoms if it becomes
> law. One important question is: Why are our "leaders" so
> desperate that they would attempt to slip such a
> potentially draconian provision into a supposedly pro-gun
> bill?
>
> The Liberty Crew
08-08-2005, 12:40 PM
#25
Registered User
Originally posted by P.J
Got this from Henry Heymering, a Concealed Carry guy from MSI.
They make sense to me? I particularly like the 911 one.
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Glock: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
15. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
16. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
17. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Got this from Henry Heymering, a Concealed Carry guy from MSI.
They make sense to me? I particularly like the 911 one.
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Glock: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
15. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
16. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
17. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Edwin
08-08-2005, 02:54 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone familiar with the "ban .50 cal" law??
What ever happened. I wrote my senator and congressman.
Click the links to be disgusted!!!
http://www.50caliberterror.com/index2.html
http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm
All the 50's ever sold not one has ever taken a civilian life. (On record)a
I guess I am going to stop buying my guns from FFL dealers and start buying them from the newspaper!!
Justin
What ever happened. I wrote my senator and congressman.
Click the links to be disgusted!!!
http://www.50caliberterror.com/index2.html
http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm
All the 50's ever sold not one has ever taken a civilian life. (On record)a
I guess I am going to stop buying my guns from FFL dealers and start buying them from the newspaper!!
Justin
08-08-2005, 03:02 PM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-08-2005, 03:35 PM
#28
Says that Deer Hunters takes shots # 150-200 Yards? Must be WAY less dense woods than round here. (Are all deer hunters using 7mm mags and no-one told me)?
Interesting.
Interesting.
08-08-2005, 06:31 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: fryeburg maine
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
around here you are lucky to see a deer, much less take a shoot. If you see a deer it is going to be 30 yards out! People have all of these Facts pumped into their heads, like about gun control and the .50 cals which scare them. I feel alot of the problem is people dont look at both sides of the story. Just my 2 cents.
Coop
Coop
08-08-2005, 07:34 PM
#30
Chapter President
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Eagle. ID
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....my last shot at big game was 349 yards (according to a Leica Rangefinder)..... perfect alignment, no wind, steady rest, nice squeeze - shot right over his back.
Did I mention that I was shooting downhill (around 30 degrees)? My brains musta squeezed out a rearward orifice - I put the crosshairs right on his spine, and...
......(sigh)..............
Guess we're getting a bit Off-Topic here.
I hope everyone read my earlier post, and got as outraged as I am - and contacted their elected Representatives!!!!!!
Did I mention that I was shooting downhill (around 30 degrees)? My brains musta squeezed out a rearward orifice - I put the crosshairs right on his spine, and...
......(sigh)..............
Guess we're getting a bit Off-Topic here.
I hope everyone read my earlier post, and got as outraged as I am - and contacted their elected Representatives!!!!!!