Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

1205206207208210

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,574 ✭✭✭✭ kowloon




  • Registered Users Posts: 14,229 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    So something like Iceland then? Where the police is the army and navy as well?, and as NATO members they know they will have a friendly invasion if they are ever threatened because of their strategic location? Could work ,or is there something in the constitution that separates civil and military power?

    Another version would be a Swiss system that includes guerrilla warfare and civilian resistance into their defence plans.We might be invaded,but we make it unliveable and ungovernable for any occupying force. We were,and are pretty good at it considering what happened in N Ireland for 30 odd years.

    Neither will happen of course...Too many careers and vested interests and "national prestige" are involved for thinking like that.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,088 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    Were they really that good at it up the road? Usual suspects drinking in the same "Ra" pubs going to the same gatherings. Hardly much point in cells when they were coming back from ops and palling about together after. If the English had treated it as a war would they have been as effective? No different than our little skirmish of Independence, the weight of international opinion had a lot to do with the outcome.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,229 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Annnddd another article in this Sundays Indo from Mrs Sheehan about the horror of innocent children owning guns in Ireland.

    Is anyone or any of our orgs going to bother to respond to this?

    LATER

    paywalled of course with the scariest paragraph first, which is what most will read and belive. I've seen the article, she went off and bothered the NARGC and got nothing exciting from them or the AGS.So it isn't that bad compared to the last one of Deasy's rants last week.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/firearms-certificates-issued-to-300-minors-every-year-gardai-reveal-41767160.html

    Post edited by Grizzly 45 on

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    You can link to the artcle, just not copy and paste the content.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,229 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    outcome.Were they really that good at it up the road? Usual suspects drinking in the same "Ra" pubs going to the same gatherings. Hardly much point in cells when they were coming back from ops and palling about together after. If the English had treated it as a war would they have been as effective? No different than our little skirmish of Independence, the weight of international opinion had a lot to do with the


    Not condoning for one minute what was done in the name of "Irish freedom" here for 35 plus years. But from a perspective of a successful guerrilla war,they were rated as the most successful urban guerrilla movement in the mid to late 20th century. Considering they almost wiped out the British cabinet,twice. Killed a prominent royal, and a few MPs, generals and politicians,and virtually turned a British army base into a supply-by-air only situation and kept an entire unit of combat-hardened British soldiers in base undercover with a Barrett 50 cal for a month in the same area. Only other crowd that stood as long have been the Basque Separatists,but they never managed as many spectaculars.

    If you bring in an army to do civilian policing, you end up with things like bloody Sunday, and its a sign you as a govt are losing control,so it is a very fine balancing act and usually not advisable. But that was the strange thing about NI because it was such a microcosm and utter tribalism of a society.It was no problem for lads to go to the pub and home to dinner after a hard day sniping or whatever.It was hard if not impossible to penetrate that sort of a society, where everyone is more or less related or knows each other like Ireland.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    Wow. 😲

    Supreme in the States have been busy this week.

    A couple of days ago they overturned a New York law restricting the carrying of handguns for personal defence ( concealed carry ) and on SKY news just now they have overturned Roe-v-Wade.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,186 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    Not surprised R v W was overturned.

    I agree with the liberty it was trying to grant. But I dint think the constitutional amendment its hinged on actually backs it up.

    plus it was essentially redundant law since Texas managed a workaround



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    Wasn't that the basis for the SC reviewing it? That is was based on improper or poor interpretation of the law?

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,186 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    Not quite. It may have been a poor interpretation of the constitutional. But that’s not why they were reviewing it. Afaik the SC doesn’t actively review past decisions on their own accord.

    W v R restricted state abortion laws to viability (21-24 weeks). In 2018 Mississippi signed a law in effect than banned abortion from 15 weeks. It was suspended by the court as obviously it was not in compliance with federal law. And it made its way to the SC. Which is what they were actually ruling on here in the first instance. But that decision impacts and supersedes W v R.

    Basically it will be up to the states. Many states won’t change. But some will restrict it to fewer weeks, or even ban it.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    Mellor - Not quite. It may have been a poor interpretation of the constitutional. But that’s not why they were reviewing it. Afaik the SC doesn’t actively review past decisions on their own accord.

    I understand that. The case was submitted to the SC for review back in mid 2020.

    Mellor -W v R restricted state abortion laws to viability (21-24 weeks). In 2018 Mississippi signed a law in effect than banned abortion from 15 weeks. It was suspended by the court as obviously it was not in compliance with federal law. And it made its way to the SC. Which is what they were actually ruling on here in the first instance. But that decision impacts and supersedes W v R.

    Yeah I get that too, but my point about "poor interpretation" was based on the reporting (on TV) of the leaked document back in May in which Justice Alto (iirc) said that the 14th amendment did not enshrine the right to abortion in the constitution, which was the basis for the ruling back in 1973 when Roe-v-Wade was heard/ruled on. A Google search also shows that the original decision was "reviewed" in 1992 and upheld.

    Mellor -Basically it will be up to the states. Many states won’t change. But some will restrict it to fewer weeks, or even ban it.

    News is repoting that 25 states intend to outright ban or further restrict abortion laws. A lady on SKY news said that it won't change much as the power to "control" abortion will now reside with each state and they can simply place existing laws in their state constitution. The previous claim then that 25 states intend to change things would seem to contradict this.

    Like most people, I know of Roe-v-Wade simply from knowing what it refers to. I don't know the specifics of the original case and have to Google most of the information around the case. I'm still not that interested in it, but was curious as to the whether its coincidence that the SC have ruled on this, the NY gun laws, etc. and the timing of these rulings. Its also a curiosity that of the case reviewed by the SC one decison was a 5-4 majority. Seems one fo the conservative justices "changed sides".

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,186 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    I understand that. The case was submitted to the SC for review back in mid 2020. 

    As I said, it was the Miss. law in front of the SC. They were not reviewing a previous bad judgement (which it was).

    Yeah I get that too, but my point about "poor interpretation" was based on the reporting (on TV) of the leaked document back in May in which Justice Alto (iirc) said that the 14th amendment did not enshrine the right to abortion in the constitution, which was the basis for the ruling back in 1973 when Roe-v-Wade was heard/ruled on. A Google search also shows that the original decision was "reviewed" in 1992 and upheld. 

    Same scenario in 1992. That was a separate case that affected the WvR regulations.

    The point being WvR was not under review because it was a bad judgement. It was under review because the Miss. law was in front of the SC. It was reversed because it was a bad judgement.

    News is repoting that 25 states intend to outright ban or further restrict abortion laws. A lady on SKY news said that it won't change much as the power to "control" abortion will now reside with each state and they can simply place existing laws in their state constitution. The previous claim then that 25 states intend to change things would seem to contradict this.

    The “won’t change much” claim from Sky is pretty clueless. Many states drafted trigger laws that came into effect as soon as WvR was repealed. It won’t change things in the states that don’t want it to change. Mainly blue states.

    Its also a curiosity that of the case reviewed by the SC one decison was a 5-4 majority. Seems one fo the conservative justices "changed sides".

    yup. 1 person in it.

    it was the Chief Justice who went against his supposed leaning

    m



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    Perhaps its my use of the word review that is causing this disconnect. I understand the SC cannot simply pick some facet of law and then make a ruling on it. I understand that a case must be brought before the SC, and the Mississippi case was submitted to the SC back in June 2020. Its only been ruled on now.

    I know the 1992 ruling was a sepatate case as was the orignial 1973 one. The bad interpretation was Justice Alto's (alledged) opinion and it seems enough justices now agree that the 14th amendment does not provide a consititutional right to abortion.

    As for SKY, as I said above it seem contradictory that they claim 25 states are already making changes, then have a guest that says nothing will change. Only this morning its reported a number of abortion clinics in the states have already begun shutting down.

    Wonder where this will leave planned parenthood. Over 300,000 abortions per year and half a billion in funding.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,186 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    Think we’re saying the same think so.

    Sky news we’re never accused of through reporting. Trigger laws have been enacted in 15 states already. Some ban immediately, others in 30 days. More will review it in time. The option exists to reduce the time rather than ban. All in all, the situation will change in about half the states. It will be interesting to see how the it affects the swing states



  • Registered Users Posts: 460 ✭✭ Munsterlad102


    Ó Cuív donates gun owned by Éamon de Valera to museum (msn.com)

    Interesting to see if he had any license or authorisation to be in possession of it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭ Mississippi.


    I wonder how he got it into the country even.

    Diplomatic immunity?



  • Registered Users Posts: 440 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    Seeing as no new licenses for full-bore pistols could have been issued after 2009, another case of laws for you but not for me. Wonder will he be prosecuted?, ha ha ha.



  • Registered Users Posts: 440 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    The only LEGAL way for him to get it into Ireland from US, was by way of using the Firearms Certificate pertaining to this firearm, but seeing as no certificate could have been issued post 2009, then he just smuggled it in, just like all the rest of the criminals and drug dealers do.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,229 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Wonder was it deacted in the US and to EU standards?

    Might have been the way it was got in?

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 440 ✭✭ tonysopprano


    Even if it was deactivated to EU standards in 2015, when he got it, it is still not up to 2019 standard, which makes it illegal, and no proof house in Ireland to deactivate it to new standards. Every which way AND lose. Rules for thee but not for me.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 742 ✭✭✭ otmmyboy2


    May have had a letter from the minister of justice, or may have had it imported by a restricted RFD and never been in "possession" of it bar the handover to the museum which could have been accomplished by the RFD being there.


    Just speculation mind you, more than likely all the legalities were ignored in favour of political expedience.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,229 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    But it should be a question that should be asked in case anyone else might ever fancy gifting family heirlooms to an uncaring state?

    The thing will be butchered into an unusable lump of metal.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,186 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    Well he’s not a diplomat, so not that.

    Article says he received it in 2019.

    So could have been deactivated maybe??



  • Registered Users Posts: 460 ✭✭ Munsterlad102


    It really is a shame that such historical pieces are being ruined and destroyed in the name of "safety".



  • Registered Users Posts: 460 ✭✭ Munsterlad102


    O'Cuiv may have gotten it in on a very lenient interpretation of "antique firearm", but that still goes against AGS policy of a non reproduction pre unitary cartridge firearm. Maybe sending off a few emails might get a response, but then again, probably not.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,229 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Couldn't hurt. just to show that we are keeping a "Skibberrean Eagle eye* on the great and good.🙂

    Might also be handy to know in case some mortal discovers great-granddad's Civil war keepsake and wishes to donate or keep it to get it "deactivated to EU standards" here🙄, but is done for "possession of an unlicensed firearm".



    *Skibbereen Eagle eye. A body of insignificance proclaiming to pay great attention or influence the policies of a far superior power or body. https://medium.com/@allgoodtales/how-the-skibbereen-eagle-kept-a-watchful-eye-on-the-czar-of-russia-5d64d4b75fed

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,803 ✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    Homemade shotgun used to assassinate Japanese Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Japan.




  • Registered Users Posts: 14,229 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Goes to show that if someone wants a gun bad enough they'll get one.Even in an ultra-regulated country like Japan.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,574 ✭✭✭✭ kowloon


    Sure you see pinfires and the likes at auction here all the time and they don't meet the guidelines. I think how the law applies to you depends on who you are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,229 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    They might as well make the pinfire revolvers a pre-unitary/antique firearm free to own as well.

    Seeing that the ammo was probably last made commercially about 140 years ago at the latest, it's not like it's easy to get any type of reloading equipment for this ammo either let alone shell casings for the obscure calibres they used. The O Cuiv one is however a CF that looks like a 32 cal,so still a live firearm under the law these days.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



Advertisement