• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

bpm57

Members
  • Content count

    510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About bpm57

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Jersey
  • Interests
    to many to list
  1. Maybe you could read the Wrenn ruling. Maybe then you will realize that it is possible to find examples that seem to contradict your "Charles (note: a lawyer, not a history phd) is 100% correct and there is nothing that contradicts him" mantra. I'll need a translation for whatever else you were babbling in your reply.
  2. Since the Palmer plaintiffs were denied trying to register handguns in DC with the stated purpose of using the pistols for concealed carry in 2009, I have my doubts the case started in 2002. It really isn't that hard to find the decision, Joe. Of course, DC mostly ignored the result of Palmer, so now we have the Wrenn ruling. From the Wrenn decision: “the state of the law in Chaucer’s England — or for that matter Shakespeare’s or Cromwell’s — is not decisive here.”
  3. Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

    Hmm, who ever knew that Gorsuch was supposed have the magical ability to _force_ the leftist part of the court to take a case. You do realize that they vote to hear a case, right? As for ignoring it, I guess you missed the Thomas/Gorsuch comments on not hearing Peruta. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-894
  4. Uncooperative Hawaiians, Dude

    Tell me again why this matters? THC is still a schedule 1 drug - if you want that to change, change the law, don't continue the "just don't enforce unpopular laws" nonsense.
  5. Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

    Err, so what? Last I checked, he is only 1 vote.
  6. Uncooperative Hawaiians, Dude

    He is? Which branch creates laws, and which one enforces them?
  7. I enjoy it when people on this forum who feel that certain types of firearms are far to dangerous for civilian hands own examples of a said guns anyway. Or those on here who feel that there is no justification for civilian firearm ownership at all - yet they own at least 1 anyway. I'm sure there is a word for this type of behavior.
  8. Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

    So why, in a discussion about "they couldn't take his gun away, because law", did you talk about DV being bargained down to misdemeanors - since you are now saying you already knew that would disqualify you from gun possession? And then accuse me of making shit up? I've said it before, Joe - I don't have your creepy DB of posts on here, and there is no requirement to read the whole history of this forum. I "grasp" the Lautenberg Amendment just fine, thank you.
  9. Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

    I see. You said something that indicated you had _no idea what the law was_, and now it is my problem since I pointed it out to you. You even claimed that I "made it up". But now that you spent 5 minutes reading about it, you are the expert. You may want to edit the rest of the post I'm responding to, since Castile & Castleman are not the same case.
  10. So expressing "hope" that you continue to do something is a "demand"? Hate to see how you react if somebody says "have a nice day" to you, BL.
  11. Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

    Did I say that I had one? But now that you went and looked it up, maybe you won't say something like: or
  12. Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

    Which one is it, Joe? If he really had the violent episodes you say, then he would of been disqualified after he was found guilty in court, even if it was DV pled down to a misdemeanor.. But since it appears none of these episodes went to court, you just move on to blame CCW law. Clearly your CCW law kept the family from pressing charges. Yeah, the Lautenberg Amendment is "made up shit". I guess I need to find an approved historian to explain it.
  13. "It is wonderful to be back in Oregon. Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states. I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
  14. “the 80s called and wants their foreign policy back.”
  15. Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

    No criminal charges, no restraining orders, sounds like the issue is really something else.. In any event, "shall issue" still doesn't mean what you think it does.