Dispute over SMD-12 classification
- Thread starter Dlask Arms
- Start date
- Location
- Prince George
ponts said:Thanks buddy! I'm sure you know all about who I am.......since I have no clue who you are and have never met you. What I have posted here will not make a hill of beans of difference to a court case. I would suggest leaving your personal attacks out of this
why do I have to know you to call bull#### when I see it.... you have no affiliation with dlask but you have information that is sensitive to thier court case ? (names of people infighting would be great to have in a court case to call them to the stand)... or so you say. You have inside knowledge from the cfc that MANY people phoned in challenging the legality of the shotgun, how exactly would you get "that" information ?
I call bull when I see it.... especially since you posted this inside info merely hours after joe posted his info on the legalities. or was it that you simply phoned the cfc and asked them for the info and they shared all this with you over the phone since your best buddies with them ??
Are YOU wendy ???
aproperone said:
EXACTLY! He is completely expressing it the wrong way. I'm not citing my source as that is SENSITIVE information to the possible pending court case.......
Calling me an anti/Wendy is TROLLING anyway you look at it and COMPLETELY uncalled for and ####in immature.
This whole thing is tiring......80% of CGN members are thankful and supportive the rest piss me off beyond belief.
This will be my last post on the matter. I wish the best for DLASK and all CGN members who choose to own and or support the rights of CDN gun owners who wish to own this firearm.....later
This will be my last post on the matter. I wish the best for DLASK and all CGN members who choose to own and or support the rights of CDN gun owners who wish to own this firearm.....later
- Location
- Prince George
splatter... obviously "ponts" is no longer participating in this thread according to his last post.... the old shell game, call him on his lies and he grows indignant and doesn't want to play anymore.
so be it.... but that is typical of internet gods who have thier "inside" knowledge questioned.
so be it.... but that is typical of internet gods who have thier "inside" knowledge questioned.
Randall_Flagg said:
Listen you ####in #######..........you have called me a liar, an anti and even Wendy. What gives you the right you ####!
I WILL NOT BETRAY THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS.
You can try to rattle my chain all you want. The reason why my sources are NOT being released is to protect "our side" for the possible court case.
Many on this board questioned the status of the shotgun right off the bat . Dlask said they were non-restricted and my registration slip says non-restricted . When the nay sayers had it perfectly explained to them the difference between an altered firearm and a manufactured firearm , they couldn't grasp it and those same many felt obligated to call the CFC and argue with them , the same way they argued here . That brought a lot of needless attention and then more jumped on the bandwagon telling the CFC that if Dlask could built a shorty there was no reason that they couldn't put a pistolgrip on thier 14 inch shotgun . That also brought a lot of needless attention . So now i sit with my non-restricted 8.5 inch shotgun which many didn't have the guts to purchase but they sure had the guts to call the CFC and argue about it . Everyone cries because they can't get an ATC to carry in the bush and Dlask brings something forward that we can and half the guys here say it isn't legal and i'm going to call the CFC about it . If the spotlight wasn't shone on this gun it would probably have flown till the end of time because the RCMP had already ruled it as non-restricted . What a bunch of f*cking idiots .
- Location
- Prince George
ponts said:
what gives me the right is something called the canadian charter of freedom and rights (read it some time...), I am just showing you that I can be as big of an interweb bully as you seem to be considering your prior posting history on this subject.
Randall_Flagg said:
You be it does and your TRUE character is shinning brightly through. So your form of expression as you have no idea about what is going on and nothing really to share with us is to resort to name calling and accusations. Really big and intelligent of you.
Randall - you are way the #### over the line. This would be a good time to smarten up.
If you don't believe what he said, fine. Say "i don't really believe that, if you can't offer proof."
But you've broken the board rules several times with your personal attacks. Frankly - you're acting more like an 'anti' than he is.
It is completely believable to me that the anti's who monitor this board organized a 'complaint' campaign. And MANY of our members here have contacts with law enforcement or CFO's or other such people.
So to call this bull#### is plain rediculous. You may not believe it, or you may. Personally, i never believe anything till i can verify it independently. But unless you KNOW it to be false, you have no business calling him a liar.
THIS is what i was talking about earlier. Right or wrong randall - your behavior in this matter is deplorable. I'd suggest from here on out you follow the rules of the board and if you don't believe something is true, fine - but don't attack the member.
If you don't believe what he said, fine. Say "i don't really believe that, if you can't offer proof."
But you've broken the board rules several times with your personal attacks. Frankly - you're acting more like an 'anti' than he is.
It is completely believable to me that the anti's who monitor this board organized a 'complaint' campaign. And MANY of our members here have contacts with law enforcement or CFO's or other such people.
So to call this bull#### is plain rediculous. You may not believe it, or you may. Personally, i never believe anything till i can verify it independently. But unless you KNOW it to be false, you have no business calling him a liar.
THIS is what i was talking about earlier. Right or wrong randall - your behavior in this matter is deplorable. I'd suggest from here on out you follow the rules of the board and if you don't believe something is true, fine - but don't attack the member.
