Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Flapp_Jackson

Pages: 1 ... 926 927 [928] 929 930 ... 948
General Discussion / Re: The Traveling round : civil disobedience
« on: July 18, 2016, 08:55:47 PM »
where is the Gas station  exception in the law ?

Common sense clause.  Rather you stop there than the side of the road -- out of gas calling AAA.
Hawaii Defense Foundation / Re: Certificates of training
« on: July 18, 2016, 07:49:12 PM »
What do you guys think of receiving a certificate of training just for logging purposes?

Maybe there can be a standard certificate that's printable by users that the senior RSO can sign off on?! (To alleviate costs)

Reason: I think it's beneficial to have a document of training (plus hours) just in case a legal dispute ever arises and you want to use "time in training" as a defense.


Nothing says you can't keep a Range Log of your own.  I do.

Dates, times, firearms used, rounds fired, and people I practiced with.

If you keep a running log, it's almost as valid as any certificate.  The IRS accepts personal tip logs that appear to be recorded in as the tips are received, just like mileage logs for deductible driving.

Just a thought.
General Discussion / Re: The Traveling round : civil disobedience
« on: July 18, 2016, 12:23:34 PM »
From the contour and tool marks, that looks like something that you made on your press.
If it contains no powder or primer then you should be fine.
You will probably be detained at an airport though.
Unless you devise a removable screw mount for a keychain.

I'm almost positive I've read ammo components are also forbidden in the passenger section.  Has to be checked in.

I guess one guy brings the hardware, another guy smuggles in a bit of powder, meet in the lavatory and put it all together?   :wacko:

From another forum, comment by someone claiming to be in airport security:

No part of a firearm, bullets or powder can be carried on your person or in your carry-on bag. Technically, an empty case should not be a problem but I personally wouldn't do it.
General Discussion / Re: The Traveling round : civil disobedience
« on: July 18, 2016, 11:55:56 AM »

     [§134-27]  Place to keep ammunition; penalty.  (a)  Except as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all ammunition shall be confined to the possessor's place of business, residence, or sojourn; provided that it shall be lawful to carry ammunition in an enclosed container from the place of purchase to the purchaser's place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places upon change of place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places and the following:

     (1)  A place of repair;

     (2)  A target range;

     (3)  A licensed dealer's place of business;

     (4)  An organized, scheduled firearms show or exhibit;

     (5)  A place of formal hunter or firearm use training or instruction; or

     (6)  A police station.

     "Enclosed container" means a rigidly constructed receptacle, or a commercially manufactured gun case, or the equivalent thereof that completely encloses the ammunition.

     (b)  Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. [L 2006, c 66, pt of §1]


Case Notes


  Discussed:  911 F. Supp. 2d 972 (2012).

§134-5  Possession by licensed hunters and minors; target shooting; game hunting.
§134-9  Licenses to carry.

Off Topic / Please forgive me ...
« on: July 17, 2016, 01:40:32 AM »
Aloha, forum members:

I'd like everyone to know how much I regret that I was unable to avoid the troll, EyeEatingFish.  I should have known from his name alone he had issues!

As much as I tried to limit replies to him, he's like a little kid nagging and nagging and nagging until you can't ignore him any longer.  I noticed several others having long running off-topic arguments with him as well, so I don't think I was the only one being drawn into his never ending downward spiral of loosely related tangents.  Maybe I was drawn into it deeper because he singled me out more, or maybe I didn't understand how incapable he is of accepting any viewpoint he didn't already agree with.

Regardless, I know not to mud wrestle with pigs, but sometimes ego says "maybe you can teach him a lesson this time!"  Little did I know how adept he is at deflection, obfuscation, misdirection, and regularly backtracking his comments as "not what I meant"!

I understand this is not my own little playground, and the forum must be shared.  As such, you try to make it something others will be proud of.  I have to admit, I'm not proud of the arguing back and forth, nor of wasting my time trying to reason with the unreasonable.  I was optimistic, but I see now the collateral damage outweighed any hope of reaching him..

As Mark Twain is quoted as saying:  "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."  I can humbly say I have now been beaten by someone with much more experience in this field than have I.

On a final note, my LIKES-to-POSTS ratio is still above 21%, while his is not even 4.5%.  That's amazing given that I've only just joined recently and only 8 likes behind his total of 96!  That alone tells me my contributions are well received by the other members here.  Mahalo for the supportive feedback!

I promise to do better.   I admit he's very good at what he does and sometimes not very obvious about it.  In spite of that, I'll do my part to the best of my ability.

Mahalo!   :wave:

I have a suggestion for you 2.

Flapp_Jackson please add Eyeeatingfish to your ignore list.

Eyeeatingfish please add Flapp_Jackson to your ignore list.

Thank you.

Thanks for the suggestion, but why did you not suggest to others to just ignore the two of us rather than try and censor us?

Just curious why the same won't work for everyone else...
The two of you arguing back and forth is basically derailing almost every post on the forum, CAN YOU PLEASE for the sake of every one else, STOP

You should also PM the moderators.  Apparently, there is an opinion Fish Boy can do whatever he wants without the mods interfering.  I can't divulge my sources, but the evidence does seem to bear that out. Meanwhile, I've had many of my own comments purged quietly without explanation or warning.

As for my side of the arguments, all I can say is I'll try.  Maybe it's the way I was taught, but I can't sit silently while someone lectures others with bad advice and information.  Silence, to me, is just as bad as spreading incorrect comments myself.

But. I'll try to be more brief and limit engagements to one rebuttal, if that makes you feel better!

One of the defenses to a crime is believing that you were acting legally based on the advice of an appropriate official. Not guaranteeing you will get off but at least if we did seek advice and the advice ended up being wrong we do have some grounds for defense.

This is the context of what you are now arguing to defend.  You said "advice" from someone can be used as a defense.  According to you, you are now claiming "advice" simply means "communication" and "information".

Let's assume your alternate definition of "advice" is correct, that advice is NOT considered more than "it's against the law to speed".  How can that be used as a defense?  That's basic information on the law that is available to you without consulting a lawyer.  If a Cop, who is not a lawyer, gives general information on the law, you can't use that as a defense.  The Cop might be mistaken, might have phrased it incorrectly, or maybe he made stuff up rather than be thought ignorant of the law he's enforcing.  He's also allowed to lie in the course of an investigation. 

With all that on the Cop's side regarding accountability, how do you get from there to "if we did seek advice and the advice ended up being wrong we do have some grounds for defense"? 
Off Topic / Re: Jokes? Jokes, anyone...
« on: July 16, 2016, 11:46:13 AM »
Not everybody will get this ...
You are using one definition of the word advice while I am using a different definition of the word. You however are claiming yours is the only accurate one which is simply not true. I didn't think it would come to this but we can start with the dictionary since you need to define fairly basic English words. opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc.:
I shall act on your advice.
2. a communication, especially from a distance, containing information:
3. an official notification, especially one pertaining to a business agreement:

Obviously, given the context of my post, I was not using definition #1 but definition #2. Communicating information. You wanted to say interpret and I was cordial and agreed that interpret could also be an applicable word. Unfortunately you could not return the gesture and had to pretend your definition was the only in existence.

I even researched multiple law dictionaries for you and amazingly they didn't have definitions for the word "advice"

So if it wasn't obvious to you in the beginning what I was getting at in my statement then it sure as heck is now. My original point remains valid even if you want to nitpick the terms I used.

Legal Advice is from an attorney and specific to a client's case.

Legal information/interpretation/definition is general and doesn't require legal analysis.

Why is that so difficult?

I truly wish you spent as much effort BEING right as you spend TRYING TO PROVE you are right!

Using the wrong word with an alternate meaning does not make it correct.  It makes you uninformed.
And your pattern repeats. You derail the thread and then blame it on me. Let me guess, next you are going to complain that I responded after you used the back to topic emoticon? You don't care about staying on topic because if you did you wouldn't have bothered to go down this path in the first place.  You only use that emoticon for your flame war purposes. I reply to you because I refuse to be bullied by you.

Saying that speeding is illegal is advising someone of the law no matter how you want to twist it. My statement remains accurate, you have proven nothing by playing with semantics.

I'm not "twisting" the meaning.  You are, Mr. "I took legal classes".  They should have taught you the law is very specific in the language and vocabulary used.  It has a common meaning among the lawyers and judges, so they are not spending all day in case after case defining the difference between "advice" and "interpretation"! 

Post sources that agree with your definition and differentiations for "legal advice".  Otherwise, you're just arguing so you can keep the thread off topic.

If my pattern repeats, it's because you can't hold a discussion up on your own.  Learn to have an intelligent discussion using real facts and experience, then maybe the pattern will be broken!

 :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Political Discussion / Re: Truck in France strikes crowd
« on: July 16, 2016, 10:29:00 AM »
Paris (AFP) - French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve on Saturday called on young citizens to become reservists and help boost security forces in the wake of the country's latest terror attack.

France's "operational reservists" include French citizens with or without military experience as well as former soldiers.

"I want to call on all French patriots who wish to do so, to join this operational reserve," said Cazeneuve.
You don't care about mistakes, you just smell blood in the water. If you only cared about mistakes then you would politely show me where and how I was wrong but that's not what you did is it?

If you ask a cop if an action is illegal and the cop says no then he advised to on the law, hence advice. In this example the cop is not advising you on a specific case, but on the law itself. Yes this is also referred to as interpreting but in the end it is still advice, hence you at nitpicking semantics.

If a cop tells you speeding is against the law, the cop is advising you of the law. Calling it interpretation is fine but it is still advice.

LOL!  Once again, hijacking the thread to defend your own bad information!  Read the definitions.  Even your response is wrong! 

"Is speeding illegal?"  "Yes, it is."   <== general information.

"I was going over the speed limit on the way to the hospital ER. My friend was bleeding profusely.  Is that considered mitigating circumstances?" <== calls for a conclusion given a specific situation, i.e. ADVICE

Spoken like a true blue SUBJECT. LOL...... A citizen is NOT a subject. Js

Unless the citizen is the subject of an investigation ...    >:D

Semantics. Advice, in the context of my post, is a legal interpretation.

Are you incapable of having a mature conversation? Couldn't you have replied without snide comment? :stopjack:

WRONG!  "Context" has zero to do with it.

You really took "legal studies" classes?  Really???  You might want to get a refund, or maybe audit the class to pick up what you might have missed the first time you slept through class!

This is not a matter of "semantics."  That would imply the meanings are the same but the words are different.

Legal ADVICE is providing analysis and guidance based on a specific case.  Legal INFORMATION or Interpretation is a GENERAL reading of the law not related to a specific instance.

As a general matter, only a lawyer may give actual legal advice, whereas any non-lawyer may recite legal information. Furthermore, it is generally illegal for a non-lawyer or unlicensed attorney to offer legal advice or otherwise represent someone other than himself or herself in a court of law.

Unlike legal information, legal advice refers to the written or oral counsel about a legal matter that would affect the rights and responsibilities of the person receiving the advice. In addition, actual legal advice requires careful analysis of the law as it applies to a person's specific situation - as opposed to speculation based on generic facts.

If you don't like snarkiness or snide comments, then quit posting false and incorrect comments!  If you spent one fraction of the time you spend writing comments simply making sure your information is accurate, coincides with other sources, and is written plainly and literately, you'd be much further ahead than you are now.

I find it fascinating the amount of time you spend defending your mistakes and bad information when you could have saved time verifying it beforehand.   :wacko:
Technical Support / Re: 2a online store
« on: July 16, 2016, 08:10:24 AM »
How do you get to the 2ahawaii store? I didn't know that 2ahawaii had 1

General Discussion / Re: Peshmerga with A4 and Vortex Strke Eagle
« on: July 16, 2016, 02:16:13 AM »
His Instagram login is "Pershmerganor"

Peshmerga (Kurdish: پێشمەرگە Pêşmerge, Kurdish pronunciation [pɛʃmærˈɡæ])
are the military forces of the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan. Peshmerga
means "one who confronts death" or "one who faces death". "Pesh" means to
stand in front of (loosely translated as to confront or face) while "merga" means death.

Firearms and Accessories / Re: Forward Assist Necessary?
« on: July 15, 2016, 08:42:57 PM »
It can be useful when you want to chamber a round quietly. Allows you to slowly ride the charging handle forward and then push the round into the chamber. Wouldn't go into battery without the FA.

Outside of old-school infantry tactics, I guess it can be useful if you use an AR to hunt.

Political Discussion / Re: IS HILLARY GUILTY?
« on: July 15, 2016, 07:23:05 PM »
Maybe those with doubts should not only watch this, but discuss the particulars with people who might work with Top Secret programs.  Hillary's server gave people WITH NO CLEARANCES access to these emails -- admins, staffers, friends, foundation members/donors (many foreigners) and whoever might have hacked her servers.  We have no way of knowing who she emailed the info to.  She had no idea, apparently, there was any classified, so why not send it to anyone she thought would be interested?

The way some compartmentalized TS is handled, you can't even view it without another person standing next to you who is also cleared (2 man rule) to prevent compromise.

"Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to
cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe."

It is believed that 1.4 million Americans have top secret clearances.

Pages: 1 ... 926 927 [928] 929 930 ... 948