Lurker > MeatiestMeatus

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/4a3190b5.jpg

Rasmoh posted...

It's rather disingenuous of you to portray being stripped of a constitutional right as being mildly inconvenienced and to pretend that the only consequence of having ones guns taken away is being unable to go to the range.

It's rather callous to advocate for domestic abuse victims to be at increased risk of harm or death because a small percentage of people might be wrongfully accused of DV and have their weapons taken away

Rasmoh posted...

Do you believe every DV accusation is credible?

The one in the case outlined in the article sure is.

You know, the one where lawyers are arguing for the credibly accused domestic abuser to have guns

Rasmoh posted...

it's not hard to see why people would be against guns being taken away from people.

People in general? Maybe.

People credibly accused of domestic violence? Yeah, it's pretty hard for me to see why anyone in their right mind would want to give guns to credibly accused domestic abusers

Here I am, posting.

While gay, may I add

adjl posted...

I love getting announcements for announcements.

I'm gonna post in this topic

ultra_magnus13 posted...

My understanding is that this case is in regards to if rights can be stripped from people ACCUSED of domestic violence that have a restraining order placed on them.

Correct, but as it's laid out in the article (if you had bothered to read it):

Wright also maintained that those accused of domestic violence have few protections in court prior to being slapped with a ban on guns.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wasn't buying that, noting that Rahimi's ex-girlfriend "did submit a sworn affidavit giving quite a lot of detail about the various threats. It's not like he just showed up and the judge said 'credible finding of violence.'"

They don't just hand out restraining orders for kicks. The person requesting an order needs to provide evidence as to why they're seeking an order.

This challenge was looking to put guns in the hands of a very credibly accused domestic abuser.

Ergo, the only ignorance you'll find in the topic title is my spelling mistake

Prob Tetris for Genesis complete

*of not on in the topic title

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211226091/supreme-court-guns-domestic-abuse

Looks like the Supreme Court will do the sensible thing for once with regards to regulating firearms and slap this challenge down.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed likely to uphold a federal law that bans gun possession for anyone subject to a domestic violence court order. If so, the decision would be a small retreat from the court's sweeping decision on gun rights last year.

From the outset Tuesday, the justices wrestled with the consequences of their far-reaching 2022 decision, declaring that in order for a gun law to be constitutional, it has to be analogous to a law that existed at the nation's founding in the late 1700s. The question Tuesday was how precise that analog has to be.

Dangerous vs. responsible

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, told the justices that under the court's most recent decisions, including last year's, Congress may disarm those who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens.

"There is no historical evidence" that the Second Amendment "was originally understood to prevent legislatures from disarming dangerous individuals," she said.

But, as several justices noted, people do all kinds of irresponsible things driving over the speed limit, putting the trash out on the wrong day but nobody would suggest they lose their constitutional rights for that. Pressed by Chief Justice John Roberts, Prelogar agreed that the word responsible is "something of a placeholder for dangerousness."

"There's no daylight at all then between not responsible and dangerous?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked. No daylight, Prelogar agreed, adding that "our understanding of what history and tradition reflect ... is those whose possession of firearms presents an unusual danger beyond the ordinary citizen."

"Why did you use the term 'responsible' if what you meant was dangerous?" Roberts asked.

"Well, we relied on the same phrasing the court itself used when it first articulated" the right to bear arms principle in 2008, she replied.

Most of the court's conservatives seemed to accept that proposition, with only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas remaining skeptical. Thomas was the author of last year's broad decision a decision so expansive and unspecific that the lower courts have interpreted it in dramatically different ways. As Justice Elena Kagan observed, "There seems to be a fair bit of division, and a fair bit of confusion about what Bruen [last year's case] means and what Bruen requires of the lower courts."

Background to the case

Challenging the federal law in Tuesday's case was Zackey Rahimi. A Texas judge stripped him of his license to have guns when it granted a domestic violence court order after Rahimi allegedly assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot, and then fired a gun at a bystander who saw the assault. After he continued firing guns in public, even after the court order, police searched his residence and found guns, magazines and ammunition. He was sentenced to six years in prison for violating the federal law that bans domestic abusers under court order from possessing guns.

Rahimi, however, continued to press his challenge to the federal law, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, declared the law unconstitutional.

Rahimi's lawyer, federal public defender Matthew Wright, struggled to defend that decision Tuesday, telling the justices there is no law from the founding era that is analogous to this one.

"There's no history of [gun] bans. They don't exist," Wright told the court.

Justice Kagan asked if the presence of a similar ban at the time of the founding is essential after the court's decision last year in the Bruen case. If there isn't a similar ban from the founding era, "we say that the government has no right to do anything?" she asked incredulously.

"That's largely what Bruen says," Wright replied.

Wright also maintained that those accused of domestic violence have few protections in court prior to being slapped with a ban on guns.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wasn't buying that, noting that Rahimi's ex-girlfriend "did submit a sworn affidavit giving quite a lot of detail about the various threats. It's not like he just showed up and the judge said 'credible finding of violence.'"

Roberts was even more direct, asking, "You don't have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?"

Wright replied, "I would want to know what dangerous person means."

"Someone who is shooting at people," Roberts shot back.

"That's fair," a sheepish Wright conceded.

Kagan followed up: "Do you think the Congress could disarm people who are mentally ill, who've been committed to mental institutions?"

"I think maybe," Wright answered, prompting this from Kagan: "I will tell you the honest truth, Mr. Wright. I feel like you are running away from your argument because the implications of your argument are just so untenable that you have to say 'no, that is not really my argument.'"

Indeed, the court's decision in the Rahimi case will have ripple effects. It may make lower courts more hesitant to strike down laws aimed at preventing dangerous people from having guns.

But as several justices said Tuesday, this is the easy case. The harder ones lie ahead, among them: federal and state laws that bar convicted felons even those convicted of non-violent crimes from having guns.

lmao

SoreChasm posted...

I wanna see Tom Holland with big ol' CGI feet.

I fucking knew were behind the foot fetish alt

captpackrat posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/ed037d04.jpg
I have no idea what this says, but that somehow makes it even better.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9d4a783f.jpg

https://www.ign.com/articles/nintendo-is-making-a-live-action-legend-of-zelda-movie

This can only be amazing there's no way they'll mess this up

https://youtu.be/jPj-8_wOZcA

I went to see them like 20 years ago lol

Opening band was Fantomas who I love and the Tool fans were such a bunch of insufferable rude assholes - booing, jeering, throwing shit on stage - during the Fantomas set that it soured the whole experience for me. I'll never go to another Tool show because their fans are awful

They're a fun band to watch perform tho. Even 20 years ago their stage show was wild. Imagine it's only improved since

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/36be1ef8.jpg

SoreChasm posted...

I think it's the admins. Regular users have no say in what the polls are.

They've been using ChatGPT to write the polls for roughly a year now

Write her a poem here I'll help

I love watching the sun rise
From betwixt your warm thighs
You're a gosh darn smoke show for a milf cougar
All up in my wet dreams like a sexy Freddy Krueger
But not like, all burnt or weird or anything distressing
Like, the opposite of that, you know? Like a hot Freddy played by in-her-prime Debra Messing
Anyways, I like watching movies with lots of action while shaggin' ya
What say you and I make this shit official, quit laggin' and I'll fraggin' marry ya

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a27c34ba.jpg

sigma balls lmao

captpackrat posted...

Just use milk instead of cream?

We're out of milk, too :(

we have oat milk but I'd rather drink my coffee black than use oat milk

Devil_May_Cry posted...

we should just pay Palestinians to move to the USA

This is a non-starter.

First, Palestinians don't want to leave. It's as much their land as anyone's.

Second, there's more of a chance of Pope Francis renouncing Christ than there is a chance the US will open up its borders to every single Palestinian refugee. They might agree to take in a couple hundred thousand at most.

Devil_May_Cry posted...

Other than that a two state solution is optimal.

I tend to agree, but that will never happen until both sides can agree to who gets what portions of land, where to place the borders, who pays for any necessary resettlements, who pays for any reconstruction/infrastructure upgrades, the establishment of a viable, legitimate, and sustainable government for Palestinian representation, etc etc etc... there's a very good reason a two-state solution hasn't been hammered out, yet

This is a fairly decent article that's easy to read and offers a good summation of the history behind the conflict, and the many obstacles to achieving a peaceful two-state resolution:

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/27/1208694837/two-state-solution-israeli-palestinian-conflict

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/cfba36ec.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/90449d9c.jpg

I wear it when required, but even my doctors office isn't requiring it unless you're symptomatic. Pretty much on an honor system though I suppose if someone was unmasked and coughing they'd ask them to mask up. Not too many places around me that still demand/request it as a blanket policy

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/5bbac4e7.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b38629d0.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e32fcc2f.jpg

Jen0125 posted...

Oooh very cool

Yours too!

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Those look great!

Thanks! I'm only personally responsible for the Autobots one. My wife did the Bowser and the parakeet and my sister-in-law did the cat

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/9/3/AAfaVHAAE_bp.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/6/6/AAfaVHAAE_bO.jpg

Opening scene: Two middle-aged white dudes standing across from one another in a moonlit field. They take off sprinting toward each other, leaping at the final moment of attack brandishing garlic breadsticks!

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/1/9/AAfaVHAAE_Y7.jpg

Cotton_Eye_Joe posted...

Introduce yourself!

Right on!

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/0/5/AAfaVHAAE_Sd.jpg

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/10/29/two-dead-18-injured-in-ybor-city-tampa-florida-shooting/71372532007/

@SoreChasm knows

How about curved... swords?

Lobomoon posted...

So to be on the safe side we should both defend and attack them?

This is straight-up ignorant

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/2/AAfaVHAAE_Co.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/3/3/AAfaVHAAE-g5.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/1/1/AAfaVHAAE-e_.jpg

More new Aesop Rock

https://youtu.be/LMnmY-FGrj4

Love the beat switch halfway through

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/3/2/AAfaVHAAE-dw.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/9/9/AAfaVHAAE-br.jpg

https://youtu.be/yU6qZi6zxRY

This will prob be all I play in this game

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/6/AAfaVHAAE-OC.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/6/6/AAfaVHAAE-FS.jpg