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

Grizzly 45 · 16-04-2021 9:24pm

civdef wrote: »

Tell ya what- I’ll propose a number. 97%
To give myself a bit of credibility I’ll also provide some references.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

And let me debunk your 97% of scientists claim...Right here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

Even NASA has its own dissenters.
https://financialpost.com/business-insider/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change

THE SCIENCE is SETTLED!! Al Gore:D:D:D

"After 15 years in the top committee, I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,""Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now."

Dr Patrick Moore Co-founder of Greenpeace
interview independent newspaper Feb 2014

civdef · 16-04-2021 9:32pm

You’ve just posted links to media stories again- but anyway give me a number you can point to?

That second Forbes article has some, as a starting point.

Grizzly 45 · 16-04-2021 9:33pm

Oh!...How predictable was this?:rolleyes:;
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pfizer-boss-says-third-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-likely-needed-within-12-months-40319574.html

civdef · 16-04-2021 9:35pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Oh!...How predictable was this?:rolleyes:;
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pfizer-boss-says-third-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-likely-needed-within-12-months-40319574.html

That a coronavirus spreading across the world at an unprecedented rate would mutate sufficiently to need updated vaccines? Virtually a certainty.

Why the rolleyes?

Grizzly 45 · 16-04-2021 9:37pm

civdef wrote: »

You’ve just posted links to media stories again- but anyway give me a number you can point to?

That second Forbes article has some, as a starting point.

And please provide me with ,one,factual,climate alarmist, event that actually happened in the period 1964 to2021IF you can. Surely ALL of these learned people and their reams of reports and thesis cant be ALL wrong to have not called one event correctly?;)
Also do explain why;
The Medieval warm period is always excluded from their research?

As is the period known as "the years without Summer" 536/539?Even chronicled in Ireland?

Why they will not allow anyone to research and verify their findings and analyse the raw data? After all isn't that part of science that anyone can replicate and confirm an experiment to prove its veracity?

Say who their sponsors of their research are?

otmmyboy2 · 16-04-2021 9:40pm

civdef wrote: »

I really hate those long line by line quote posts- and life is too short to be writing them.

If I thought your plan would work I’d be all for it. But it won’t.

Great rebuttal, so much detail lol

Why even question if you don't want to bother with the reply :rolleyes:

Cass · 16-04-2021 10:01pm

civdef wrote: »

Tell ya what- I’ll propose a number. 97%

I'm going to tell Yubabill, he hates that number.

Its a lie, or more accurately a purposeful misrepresentation.

If you want more, including reference material, read this article from 2015.

Cass · 16-04-2021 10:44pm

Cass wrote: »

Here it is people. Best part is, and please God sense the sarcasm, anything and I mean anything that the Government find offensive will be banned.

The really scary part of all this is you don't have to be abusive or overtly threatening for it to be classed as hate speech. Even politely worded speech if deemed hateful or inciting hatred, BUT NOT THREATENING, will be prosecutable.

Well, its happening. The 2021 bill is on its way through the various stages, but will be a thing shortly.

otmmyboy2 · 16-04-2021 10:47pm

Cass wrote: »

Well, its happening. The 2021 bill is on its way through the various stages, but will be a thing shortly.

Lovely.
A segregated society now featuring thought police.

Utterly lovely. :mad:

Cass · 16-04-2021 10:51pm

It'll be fun. Can't wait for the first court case.

otmmyboy2 · 16-04-2021 11:02pm

Cass wrote: »

It'll be fun. Can't wait for the first court case.

Tell me about it.
Proposed text here-
https://assets.gov.ie/132606/94b418bb-83ae-49f6-bf51-cf38cf15c805.pdf

A person is guilty of an offence who –
communicates to the public or a section of the public by any means, for
the purpose of inciting, or being reckless as to whether such
communication will incite, hatred against another person or group of
people due to their real or perceived association with a protected
characteristic.

With protected characteristics being-

“protected characteristic” means race; colour; nationality; religion, ethnic or
national origin; sexual orientation; gender; or disability

That is crazy broad in its current stage. Can almost hear the solicitors and barristers furiously calculating their new earnings from this.

Cass · 16-04-2021 11:36pm

Most religions view homosexuality as an abomination and/or sin. So will expressing these religious views now be a crime?

Travellers have a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration by population size so is pointing this out a crime?

As for gender, are we going down that road here?

The intent bit is what bothers me. How do you prove what is in someone's head? I see the, in my view, ridiculous theory of unconscious bias so is this going to be used as a reason for prosecution?

I just don't get hate crime. Crime is hateful so why put special circumstances based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Surely its heinous regardless of the "persuasion" of the victim? IOW if assaulting someone gets you 5 years why does it turn into 10 because they're black, white, green or pink? It'll open the door for people to claim every assault (physical or otherwise) on them is due to some form of "-ism".

tudderone · 17-04-2021 12:22am

I was verbally abused for being white, in dublin, but let me guess, thats not covered by this Orwellian nonsense ? What is hate crime anyway ? They seriously want to give people six months because someones feelings got hurt.

Cass · 17-04-2021 12:29am

Cass wrote: »

Priceless.

Anti white, blm co-founder who is a self described communist buys a $1.4 million house in a 90% white neighbourhood with only a 1.7% black population. blm took in over $90 million in donations last year and even her own have attacked her because as one said "i'm trying to buy cots for elderly people to keep them of the floor and you spend millions on a house, in a white neighbourhood".

Facebook, and i presume other media will follow suit, are blocking the sharing or posting of this story and even blocking the news paper that broke the story from posting it.

On a related note Twitter banned Project Veritas for their expose on CNN.

But not to worry, nothing to see here, no bias, no agenda. Move along. :rolleyes:

otmmyboy2 · 17-04-2021 12:31am

tudderone wrote: »

I was verbally abused for being white, in dublin, but let me guess, thats not covered by this Orwellian nonsense ? What is hate crime anyway ? They seriously want to give people six months because someones feelings got hurt.

Oh no, that'd be mad.

It's up to 12 months summary, up to 5 years indictment.
And that lovely class A fine(5k on summary). :rolleyes:

I cannot think of a single person in my life who hasn't been verbally abused for something on that protected list.

Mellor · 17-04-2021 4:29am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well please provide scientific papers " to refute them then? And please tell us which one of the varied and multiple scenarios have come even 50% true in the Climate alarmists predictions over the last 57 years?

They are sensationalist headlines, misunderstandings and exaggerations. I don’t need scientific backing to point that out.
I’m refuting your claims not the headlines themselves.

And I’m sure plenty of scientific studies have proven accurate - not all of course. I don’t claim to know them all. But off the top of my head one that stands out is the idea that;
CFCs and similar fluorocarbons are depleting the ozone layer.
We stopped using them, depletion stopped and has even now begun to regenerate. Fairly clear example of the scientific community being correct.

So course you still get science deniers and conspiracy theorist claiming it coincidently spontaneously regenerated. Nothing you can do about those types.

Grizzly 45 · 17-04-2021 1:08pm

Mellor wrote: »

They are sensationalist headlines, misunderstandings and exaggerations. I don’t need scientific backing to point that out.
I’m refuting your claims not the headlines themselves.

Well refute them...provide some proof that these learned papers were correct and that we would have an ice age by the year 2000...because I seem to have missed that one. Or that the climate alarmist spokesman Al Gore, who assuredly would be well informed by science on this topic claimed that the arctic ice would be gone by 2006 [now postponed to 2030]and the sea levels would be swamping his newly acquired beachfront house in the same year?
No proof to dispute these ...you have no argument...Next point...

And I’m sure plenty of scientific studies have proven accurate - not all of course.

How about 99% of them since 1964 written by supposed experts in their fields? Show me ONE demontrateable doom prediction that came 100% true and accurate in that time frame?

I don’t claim to know them all. But off the top of my head one that stands out is the idea that;

Good that you used that particular phrase.

CFCs and similar fluorocarbons are depleting the ozone layer.
We stopped using them, depletion stopped and has even now begun to regenerate. Fairly clear example of the scientific community being correct.
So course you still get science deniers and conspiracy theorist claiming it coincidently spontaneously regenerated. Nothing you can do about those type

Jurys out on that one too.
Just as much as you get climate alarmists claiming it was a problem in the first place, and can neither prove or disprove that manmade CFCs caused this hole, that it isn't there naturally or is a requirement for the planet healths. Or can explain how a pretty much post1940s product suddenly amounted to megatonnage use to create this problem.

Grizzly 45 · 17-04-2021 1:19pm

Cass wrote: »

Most religions view homosexuality as an abomination and/or sin. So will expressing these religious views now be a crime?

Travellers have a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration by population size so is pointing this out a crime?

As for gender, are we going down that road here?

The intent bit is what bothers me. How do you prove what is in someone's head? I see the, in my view, ridiculous theory of unconscious bias so is this going to be used as a reason for prosecution?

I just don't get hate crime. Crime is hateful so why put special circumstances based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Surely its heinous regardless of the "persuasion" of the victim? IOW if assaulting someone gets you 5 years why does it turn into 10 because they're black, white, green or pink? It'll open the door for people to claim every assault (physical or otherwise) on them is due to some form of "-ism".

Maybe we should found a "church of the gun owner and field sports" and avail of this legal protection here?The antis are already trying it on with
" the church of the fox" in the UK.

We could already claim this group is a congregation and we have been accused pf being "gun worshippers".So tack onto that "and proud of it!" We get the mods signed up as Reverends,and we already have the makings of a religion.

Mellor · 17-04-2021 1:34pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well refute them...provide some proof that these learned papers were correct and that we would have an ice age by the year 2000...because I seem to have missed that one. Or that the climate alarmist spokesman Al Gore, who assuredly would be well informed by science on this topic claimed that the arctic ice would be gone by 2006 [now postponed to 2030]and the sea levels would be swamping his newly acquired beachfront house in the same year?
No proof to dispute these ...you have no argument...Next point...

Read what I said. I’m not disputing the headlines. I’m disputing your claims. That’s not difficult to grasp.

Papers sensationalise studies all the time. Of course misinterpreted studies won’t come true.
To present random headlines as scientific consensus is frankly laughable.

How about 99% of them since 1964 written by supposed experts in their fields? Show me ONE demontrateable doom prediction that came 100% true and accurate in that time frame?

You do realise that predictions are made based on the situation at the time.The idea is we act, and prevent it from happening.
If we do act, and prevent something. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t accurate. I didn’t think I’d have to point that out, but here we are.

Jurys out on that one too.
Just as much as you get climate alarmists claiming it was a problem in the first place, and can neither prove or disprove that manmade CFCs caused this hole, that it isn't there naturally or is a requirement for the planet healths. Or can explain how a pretty much post1940s product suddenly amounted to megatonnage use to create this problem.

Just to clarify, are you claiming that the ozone hole was never as big as they said?
Or that it hasn’t gotten smaller?

BattleCorp · 17-04-2021 2:58pm

tudderone wrote: »

I was verbally abused for being white, in dublin, but let me guess, thats not covered by this Orwellian nonsense ? What is hate crime anyway ? They seriously want to give people six months because someones feelings got hurt.

This legislation is the equivalent of the 'idon'tlikedelookofdat' that's embedded in firearms legislation.

Mellor · 17-04-2021 3:34pm

Cass wrote: »

Most religions view homosexuality as an abomination and/or sin. So will expressing these religious views now be a crime?

Shouldn’t be. People are free to practise religion abd it’s included beliefs.
Thinking homosexuality is an abomination doesn’t mean it’s inciting hatred.

Same as thinking organised religion is a cult that prays on feeble minded idiots is an entitled opinion without it inciting hatred.

Travellers have a disproportionately higher rate of incarceration by population size so is pointing this out a crime?

Why would it be? It’s a fact.
It’s not like your finding lads to go bash the pikies who’ve come to town.

The intent bit is what bothers me. How do you prove what is in someone's head? I see the, in my view, ridiculous theory of unconscious bias so is this going to be used as a reason for prosecution?

Determining intent is at the heart of a lot of crime. Pretty standard tbh.
There’s often evidence to intent, but if there not it’s a hard case to prove.

I just don't get hate crime. Crime is hateful so why put special circumstances based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Surely its heinous regardless of the "persuasion" of the victim? IOW if assaulting someone gets you 5 years why does it turn into 10 because they're black, white, green or pink? It'll open the door for people to claim every assault (physical or otherwise) on them is due to some form of "-ism".

No all crime is hateful. Some people steal because they need or want something. Not because they hate the victim. Obvious lots of assaults, murders fall into a form of hate

If I beat up a white bloke because he split my drink, it’s assault.
If I beat up a green man for spilling my drink, it’s still just assault. Skin colour doesn’t change it. Or shouldn’t.
But if I beat up a green man, purely because he’s got green skin. That motive makes it a hate crime.
It should be really obvious that crime exists. Kinda hard to justify it as acceptable. But there will be definitely fake claims made. The onus is on the accuser to prove motive imo. Should never be default stance.

Cass · 17-04-2021 6:35pm

Mellor wrote: »

Shouldn’t be.

Buy you don't know, nor more than i do and with this power will come abuse.

People are free to practise religion abd it’s included beliefs.

How?

If a church or religious group comes out against anything that goes against their religious beliefs but is accepted as a society it may be viewed as inciting hatred or discrimination hence an offence. IOW the presumption of innocence is somewhat mooted as you must prove there was no intent.

Thinking homosexuality is an abomination doesn’t mean it’s inciting hatred.

Never said thinking anything was inciting hatred, you added thinking.

I said in the context of this bill which states communicating such beliefs in any form which may cause incitement of hatred is an offence.

Same as thinking organised religion is a cult that prays on feeble minded idiots is an entitled opinion without it inciting hatred.

Organised religion is not deemed a protected group or minority.

Why would it be? It’s a fact.

Since when has that mattered and i'm not being vague or deflecting. If someone takes offence and claims its incitement to hatred then you can be sure you'll get a knock on the door. Its happened in the UK, Canada and other countries that have tried this nonsense.

It’s not like your finding lads to go bash the pikies who’ve come to town.

Again its not simply about hatred in a physical form, it covers any communication of beliefs that may, however purposeful or not, cause incitement to hatred. If you share a post on twitter, fb or some other social media that is deemed to be an offence you are now as guilty as the person that is the author.

Determining intent is at the heart of a lot of crime. Pretty standard tbh.

Not what i'm talking about.

There’s often evidence to intent,

You seem to be focusing on the physical. If someone robs a bank but gets caught walking into the bank with the balaclava and gun well intent is obvious. Someone making a statement on social media or via some other form of media may do so innocently or without intent but is now, possibly, guilty of an offence.

but if there not it’s a hard case to prove.

Thats literally what i said.
No all crime is hateful. Some people steal because they need or want something. Not because they hate the victim. Obvious lots of assaults, murders fall into a form of hate

If I beat up a white bloke because he split my drink, it’s assault.
If I beat up a green man for spilling my drink, it’s still just assault. Skin colour doesn’t change it. Or shouldn’t.
But if I beat up a green man, purely because he’s got green skin. That motive makes it a hate crime.

Do you think that hate crime needs an explanation? Do you think i, or others don't understand what hate crime is? Why the need to explain it?

It should be really obvious that crime exists.

I did not say it does not exist.

Kinda hard to justify it as acceptable.

Who has done that?

But there will be definitely fake claims made.

There is at least one a week, we just don't hear about them.

The onus is on the accuser to prove motive imo.

The accusation will be enough as has been the case in the many hoax and fake claims over the years to ruin someone's life, career, etc.

Should never be default stance.

I don't get this. What stance?

I still don't get it nor agree with hate crime laws. They're vague, easily open to abuse, will cause segregation among races, and will do nothing to deter hate crime but merely serve to push it "underground".

tudderone · 17-04-2021 11:19pm

I cannot believe our gang of eejits are tackling this. The trouble this has caused in France with the Charlie Hebdo thing a few years back, and the recent outbreak of the same thing at a school in Bradford in England only last month should be warning enough.

The conflict between freedom of speech and some people being offended, being a minefield, getting it wrong can lead to actual bloodshed, it should not be tampered with unless they really know what they are doing.

Its a bit like seeing Neanderthal man heading for a nuclear reactor with a stick, you just know its not going to end well.

Mellor · 18-04-2021 4:00am

Cass wrote: »

Buy you don't know, nor more than i do and with this power will come abuse.

Of course I don;'t know that it won't. And neither do you as you said.
Which is the point. If it's abused, that's an issue.
But that's not a reason for the genuine use not to exist.

If a church or religious group comes out against anything that goes against their religious beliefs but is accepted as a society it may be viewed as inciting hatred or discrimination hence an offence. IOW the presumption of innocence is somewhat mooted as you must prove there was no intent.

Religion groups having a certain feeling is their own business.
They've absolutely no business feeling me how I should feel. I find it hilarious that religions people still think they have the power to dictate to others.

The onus is always on the accuser to prove intent, not the defendant. That's a basic principle in law.

Never said thinking anything was inciting hatred, you added thinking.
I said in the context of this bill which states communicating such beliefs in any form which may cause incitement of hatred is an offence.

That's it in a nutshell. People are entitled to have opinions.
Using those opinions in order to incite hatred is not ok.
Communicating an opinion doesn't mean inciting hatred, iimo

Organised religion is not deemed a protected group or minority.

From your quote;
“protected characteristic” means race; colour; nationality; religion, ethnic or
national origin; sexual orientation; gender; or disability

So have proposed protect from hate crime as the others do.

Again its not simply about hatred in a physical form, it covers any communication of beliefs that may, however purposeful or not, cause incitement to hatred. If you share a post on twitter, fb or some other social media that is deemed to be an offence you are now as guilty as the person that is the author.

Clearly "incitement of hatred" needs to be defined. As "I'm offended" doesn't cut it for me.

Do you think that hate crime needs an explanation? Do you think i, or others don't understand what hate crime is? Why the need to explain it?

That was in response to;
"I just don't get hate crime."

It was just an example.

I did not say it does not exist.

Cool. So we both agree it exists.

So next question, do you think it should be allowed, or is acceptable?

Cass · 18-04-2021 11:17am

Mellor wrote: »

Which is the point. If it's abused, that's an issue.

It will be and once in law its too late.

They've absolutely no business feeling me how I should feel. I find it hilarious that religions people still think they have the power to dictate to others.

Same applies to Government. This is the policing of speech, hence the end of free speech which is constitutionally protected.

The onus is always on the accuser to prove intent, not the defendant. That's a basic principle in law.

By the time it gets to this point you're already in court and suffering the ramifications i mentioned above. This is a life changing scenario even if "found" innocent.

That's it in a nutshell. People are entitled to have opinions.
Using those opinions in order to incite hatred is not ok.
Communicating an opinion doesn't mean inciting hatred, iimo

And all of that is already covered under the 1989 act.

From your quote;

Nope, not me.

Clearly "incitement of hatred" needs to be defined. As "I'm offended" doesn't cut it for me.

Guarantee it'll be in there in some other format.

That was in response to;
"I just don't get hate crime."

The rest of that quote said how i don't understand why one type of crime against one race is more heinous than another.

Cool. So we both agree it exists.

Not a Eureka moment considering i never said people don't hate others.

So next question, do you think it should be allowed, or is acceptable?

Its already legislated for and if they want to "update" the law for the new age then so be it, but they have already made mention from 18 months when Charlie Flanagan started this, their intent to legislate for hate speech, not just crime.

So if i believe there are only two genders and someone i'm speaking to claims to be a bi-fluid Dolphin and i don't address them as such then i'm guilty of an offense. Speech police and the end of free speech. Free speech may include hate speech, but it should (as i've said ad nauseum) be brought out into the public domain and dismissed/highlighted for the ignorant and vile speech that it is, not hidden away and allowed to fester and grow until it becomes a real world problem.

As said look to Canada and the UK as examples of the ridiculousness of such laws.

Cass · 18-04-2021 12:15pm

You know the excrement is hitting the fan when the Dalai Lama is tooling up:

174583518_1610194489370974_2432255415628953747_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=Vv9MsAD4Q3YAX8_HtxU&_nc_ht=scontent-dub4-1.xx&oh=a2c275d999cedf4e98837ce4465fe6c7&oe=60A25E80

174583518_1610194489370974_2432255415628953747_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=Vv9MsAD4Q3YAX8_HtxU&_nc_ht=scontent-dub4-1.xx&oh=a2c275d999cedf4e98837ce4465fe6c7&oe=60A25E80

Rows Grower · 18-04-2021 1:31pm

Mellor wrote: »

Of course I don;'t know that it won't. And neither do you as you said.
Which is the point. If it's abused, that's an issue.
But that's not a reason for the genuine use not to exist.

Religion groups having a certain feeling is their own business.
They've absolutely no business feeling me how I should feel. I find it hilarious that religions people still think they have the power to dictate to others.

The onus is always on the accuser to prove intent, not the defendant. That's a basic principle in law.

That's it in a nutshell. People are entitled to have opinions.
Using those opinions in order to incite hatred is not ok.
Communicating an opinion doesn't mean inciting hatred, iimo

From your quote;
“protected characteristic” means race; colour; nationality; religion, ethnic or
national origin; sexual orientation; gender; or disability

So have proposed protect from hate crime as the others do.

Clearly "incitement of hatred" needs to be defined. As "I'm offended" doesn't cut it for me.

That was in response to;
"I just don't get hate crime."

It was just an example.

Cool. So we both agree it exists.

So next question, do you think it should be allowed, or is acceptable?

That's it plain and simple.

Easy to understand and shouldn't have to be explained to decent people.

Cass · 18-04-2021 2:10pm

We're going to combat racism...................................

............. by being racist!

BattleCorp · 18-04-2021 2:54pm

The best way to combat this new hate crime legislation is to report every single article that says anything negative about white people as being a hate crime.

Mellor · 18-04-2021 3:10pm

Cass wrote: »

Same applies to Government. This is the policing of speech, hence the end of free speech which is constitutionally protected.

Which part of the constitution protects inciting hatred or anything of the sort.
The Free State, and later the republic was founded on the literal opposite idea.

Guarantee it'll be in there in some other format.

When will the text be availible? I thought it already was, but may be wrong.

The rest of that quote said how i don't understand why one type of crime against one race is more heinous than another.

Sorry you've lost me. At which point does this apply to one race more than another?

Its already legislated for and if they want to "update" the law for the new age then so be it, but they have already made mention from 18 months when Charlie Flanagan started this, their intent to legislate for hate speech, not just crime.

Sorry, this is entirely my fault. But I'm really not following.
It really sounds like you agree with the concept. But clearly you don't.
Are you saying hate speech should be allowed, under the contitution, or that it's noy ok?

So if i believe there are only two genders and someone i'm speaking to claims to be a bi-fluid Dolphin and i don't address them as such then i'm guilty of an offense.

Unless you hate Dolphin people, and try spur up some anti dolphin drama.
I really don't see what see what offense this is

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

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

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County