Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You, I would serve up a curare dart from a mere puff of breath.
So symbolic to shut you up with such a small force. It would be a
weak dose though, so instead of just dying, you would lay there,
unable to move, for hours or days... before finally puking out.
I'll add the above to my files, documenting the threats you
make here.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:f58078d7-d213-45a3-b83f-
044f5a2ed631@googlegroups.com:
A felony is a "disability"?
Real easy to google you mentally disabled punk fuck.
You are not confused. You are self retarded.
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:22:18 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:f58078d7-d213-45a3-b83f-
044f5a2ed631@googlegroups.com:
A felony is a "disability"?
Real easy to google you mentally disabled punk fuck.
You are not confused. You are self retarded.
This is like one of those AI machines having a conversation with
another. They may continue to talk back and forth, but neither of
them seems to have any idea what the other one is saying, much
less what they are saying themselves.
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c489e53a-f7e4-4c0c-8e81-2b806c89cb4e@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:22:18 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:f58078d7-d213-45a3-b83f-
044f5a2ed631@googlegroups.com:
A felony is a "disability"?
Real easy to google you mentally disabled punk fuck.
You are not confused. You are self retarded.
This is like one of those AI machines having a conversation with
another. They may continue to talk back and forth, but neither of
them seems to have any idea what the other one is saying, much
less what they are saying themselves.
Real easy you punk fuck. Google "federal firearm disability"
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 1:10:34 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c489e53a-f7e4-4c0c-8e81-2b806c89cb4e@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:22:18 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:f58078d7-d213-45a3-b83f-
044f5a2ed631@googlegroups.com:
A felony is a "disability"?
Real easy to google you mentally disabled punk fuck.
You are not confused. You are self retarded.
This is like one of those AI machines having a conversation
with another. They may continue to talk back and forth, but
neither of them seems to have any idea what the other one is
saying, much less what they are saying themselves.
Real easy you punk fuck. Google "federal firearm disability"
Once in a while you do get something right.
I was unaware that in
federal speak anything barring someone from gun ownership is
called a disability.
No shit, shithead.
But then this is interesting. Federal law says that someone that
has been barred from owning firearms and believes it was done
illegally, can petition the BATF to reconsider their case.
However Congress has barred BATF from doing what the law requires
and the SC upheld it. So, if they put you on the banned list and
you should not be, then you're screwed, Congress and BATF can
ignore the law and the SC says it's all good.
I'd be willing to bet that it is handled on a case by case basis,https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0617.htm
Since October 1992, Congress, in its annual appropriations, has
prohibited BATF from using appropriated funds to investigate or
act upon applications for relief submitted by individuals. BATF
claims that as long as this ban remains in place, it cannot
process such applications.
THE THOMAS BEAN CASE
Thomas Bean, a convicted felon, applied for reinstatement of his
firearm privileges. BATF returned the application unprocessed,
explaining that a provision in its annual appropriations barred it
from expending funds to process applications. Bean sought relief
in federal district court, on the grounds that the bureau's
inaction constituted a denial within the meaning of the law and
was thus subject to judicial review. BATF contended that the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because an actual decision by
BATF was a prerequisite for judicial review and the bureau had not
denied Bean's application. The district court sided with Bean and
the appeals court affirmed the decision (Bean v. BATF, 253 F.3d
234 (5th Cir. Tex. 2001)).
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower
courts' rulings, finding that an actual BATF decision on an
application was a prerequisite for judicial review, and inaction
did not amount to a denial within the meaning of the law (U.S. v.
Bean, 537 U.S. 71, (2002)). According to Justice Thomas, who wrote
the opinion, âmere inaction by ATF does not invest a district
court with independent jurisdiction to act on an applicationâ
(Id., at 76).
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 2:01 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.
It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.
The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.
A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd.
Yeah... you seem to have lost me. Care to spell that out a bit more? What is not clear about the 2nd amendment? Are you talking about the fact that gun ownership is regulated or that there are people who think they should be able to possess bazookas?
I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.
What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles.
Nonsense. The muskets used at the time were the same as the hunting
weapons of the day, the rifles that were common in the colonies or
very similar to them.
You could affix a bayonet to them. a lot of the fighting was
hand-to-hand, gruesome stuff.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:e5ef1d18-1c19-48d9-b65b-e2c5d3fdaa12@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 1:10:34 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c489e53a-f7e4-4c0c-8e81-2b806c89cb4e@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:22:18 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:f58078d7-d213-45a3-b83f-
044f5a2ed631@googlegroups.com:
A felony is a "disability"?
Real easy to google you mentally disabled punk fuck.
You are not confused. You are self retarded.
This is like one of those AI machines having a conversation
with another. They may continue to talk back and forth, but
neither of them seems to have any idea what the other one is
saying, much less what they are saying themselves.
Real easy you punk fuck. Google "federal firearm disability"
Once in a while you do get something right.
I do not need your pathetic commendations.
I was unaware that in
federal speak anything barring someone from gun ownership is
called a disability.
No shit, shithead.
But then this is interesting. Federal law says that someone that
has been barred from owning firearms and believes it was done
illegally, can petition the BATF to reconsider their case.
However Congress has barred BATF from doing what the law requires
and the SC upheld it. So, if they put you on the banned list and
you should not be, then you're screwed, Congress and BATF can
ignore the law and the SC says it's all good.
Yeah, if you feel you were wrongly placed on the list. IOW a
bunch of jackasses trying to get a gun mad about being turned down.
The fact is that validly placed individuals that actually have a
felony record and are disbaled, can apply to have their disability
removed.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0617.htm
Since October 1992, Congress, in its annual appropriations, has
prohibited BATF from using appropriated funds to investigate or
act upon applications for relief submitted by individuals. BATF
claims that as long as this ban remains in place, it cannot
process such applications.
THE THOMAS BEAN CASE
Thomas Bean, a convicted felon, applied for reinstatement of his
firearm privileges. BATF returned the application unprocessed,
explaining that a provision in its annual appropriations barred it
from expending funds to process applications. Bean sought relief
in federal district court, on the grounds that the bureau's
inaction constituted a denial within the meaning of the law and
was thus subject to judicial review. BATF contended that the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because an actual decision by
BATF was a prerequisite for judicial review and the bureau had not
denied Bean's application. The district court sided with Bean and
the appeals court affirmed the decision (Bean v. BATF, 253 F.3d
234 (5th Cir. Tex. 2001)).
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower
courts' rulings, finding that an actual BATF decision on an
application was a prerequisite for judicial review, and inaction
did not amount to a denial within the meaning of the law (U.S. v.
Bean, 537 U.S. 71, (2002)). According to Justice Thomas, who wrote
the opinion, âmere inaction by ATF does not invest a district
court with independent jurisdiction to act on an applicationâ
(Id., at 76).
I'd be willing to bet that it is handled on a case by case basis,
just as it always was in the past.
If the right party is making the application for re-instatement,
it gets considered, and "the 'ban' somehow got missed as they
processed the application anyway...". I am sure a small(er) handful
gets reinstated each year.
So, they have no rights? Some bureaucrat puts you on a list
and as a citizen, you have no way to appeal it?
Obviously you did not read that cite that clearly says that
Congress has forbid the ATF from considering appeals from people
who have been denied.
So, they have no rights? Some bureaucrat puts you on a list
and as a citizen, you have no way to appeal it?
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:04:56 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:09:22 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:32:30 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:11:46 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 12:16 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:29:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/4/19 2:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Trump Opens Door
That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it,
Money from Trump
and your chicks for free
Americans don't want handouts. The only question is, were it, legal how
much money Trump would have to pay each American yearly in exchange for
being voted president for life such that they thought of it as a "gift"
and not a "handout."
I estimate around $250.
Well, Trump should have his re-election secured then. He's handed out
more than that to most Americans with his tax cut.
 "MOST"
 What about us poor that pay no tax?
According to some you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay taxes.
It's not how I feel about it. There should be no restrictions on
convicted criminals who have served their time and released back into
society. doesn't matter at all what they were convicted of even a
convicted murderer who's served their sentence and is a free citizen
again is entitled to vote in elections.
all de-facto poll taxes like that on free citizens are IMO unconstitutional.
If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.
It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.
The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.
--
Rick C.
++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
So what? Just because the Constitution allows something doesn't mean
that the states can't then regulate it and that's where it can be
addressed, if they choose to. With all the serious, major issues
facing the country, worrying about this is near the bottom of my list.
Exactly. You don't care about the rights of others, only your own.
--
That's another stupid lib lie. I simply cited what the Constitution
says.
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 9:07:26 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
So, they have no rights? Some bureaucrat puts you on a list
and as a citizen, you have no way to appeal it?
Haven't you heard of the no-fly list?
--
Rick C.
On 6/7/19 1:46 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
And probation is among the most egregious. They can forbid you from
some social media or other forms of communication like newsletters you
might publish, first amendment gone. Almost all of them say no guns
even for a misdemeanor so out goes the second amendment. The fourth is
gone, some of those papers say the can search your home at will, EVEN
IF YOU LIVE WITH OTHER PEOPLE. Even mentioning the fifth will get you
"violated" which means back in the pokey.
Hey, beats going to prison I suppose. Pretty sure probation is one of
those left-wing "tolerant" concepts, you know?
A lot of the laws as written on the books are by hardline authoritarian
right-wingers Oh you got a dime bag? that'll be five years son. Tough on
crime, we are.
Probation is a pretty good deal if I were offered it I'd probably take
it and fuck off social media for a while. The sadly hilarious thing is
I've watched guys violate the terms of their probation/parole by getting
into drama on social media even though they knew the terms of their
probation was to not do that and their officer would be checking up on
them as you say.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for guys who don't know when to quit.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:4a9c07a4-7cad-4ec6-baab-
647115d0ed34@googlegroups.com:
So, they have no rights? Some bureaucrat puts you on a list
and as a citizen, you have no way to appeal it?
You got a felony record?
That is not an "appealable listing".
It is not "some bureaucrat". The state you get convicted in
notifies the FBI who originally maintained the database. Who it is
now I do not know. The FBI used to investigate gun ownership
applications, and the only time the ATF ever got involved was if you
wanted to get a license for a machine gun.
You are on a federal disability as well as a disability for the
state you have the conviction in.
It is not something which you can appeal.
After you serve your time and get your citizenship back and your
freedom and your parole is over, that is the one right you do not
get back.
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:01:27 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 9:07:26 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
So, they have no rights? Some bureaucrat puts you on a list
and as a citizen, you have no way to appeal it?
Haven't you heard of the no-fly list?
--
Rick C.
Sure and that was wrong too. There needs to be an easy appeals process.
However they should have the right to vote regardless, as I say.
YOU claimed that people can get removed from the federal
"disabled" list which blocks them from possessing a gun! There
aren't many ways to get on that list, being a felon is by far the
most common. The other way is to be declared a nut by a court. I
showed you were Congress has forbid the ATF from processing any
appeals. So, what's your problem now?
After you serve your time and get your citizenship back and
your
freedom and your parole is over, that is the one right you do not
get back.
That's not true, what happens varies state by state. In some, you
have to petition to get your voting rights back and it's up to the
state.