Jump to content

BHMCruiser

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1595
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BHMCruiser

  1. 17 hours ago, slorch said:

    we lived in HOA for 15 years.  Thought they were a bit finicky on a few things, but overall good.

    For past 4 years, we have lived in non-HOA neighborhood that is still nice.  Neighbors on both sides of our house don't give a flying fuck about their yards/ weeds; nevermind the fact that every other house on the street takes care of their yard very nicely.  HOA's were invented for shitheads like my 2 neighbors.

    I would rather live between a slaughterhouse and a neverending tire fire than have a HOA

    • Hook 'Em 3
  2. On 5/14/2023 at 4:25 AM, shadow_operative said:

    lol. i could not care less what the virtue signaling is about, whether it's that "all men are pigs" or that "it's ok to be gay." neither one is relevant to the show, and the gratuitous virtue signaling down this home stretch run of the show has just been weird and out of place. they've doubled the airtime of each episode, but not so that they could wrap up the existing storylines, but to add in brand new characters who come and go with no purpose, and to make room for the aforementioned virtue signaling. such a strange way to wrap up a series.

    also good lord you kids remind me of school children with a kid you love to kick on. you guys wake up in the morning waiting to see what i post here so you can circle jerk over it and freak out about it together. your bombastic responses to my posts never cease to make me laugh. you guys live to get riled up over me, and then whine about it afterward. but supposedly it's me who lacks self awareness. again, hilarious. 

    I literally do not know a single other poster on this site but I have to say you are remarkably tedious. 

    Also, if this whole anti-derka circle jerk is a real thing, how do I get in on it? Asking for a friend...

  3. 19 hours ago, Nivek said:

     

    I think the same thing.  It is the reason he gave him a new car.   

    Rupert cannot stand people who behave wholesomely because he wants everybody to wallow in their faults the way he does. 

    • Like 1
  4. On 5/11/2023 at 9:18 AM, shadow_operative said:

    what was with rebecca's speech to roy all about? the guy has changed pretty dramatically for the better and hasn't been nearly as negative as he used to be. it's been a pretty major plot point. she asks him to the press conference, he doesn't do it, and suddenly she's delivering some speech to him that you could tell was supposed to be some great, momentous event, when in reality it just comes out of nowhere and doesn't make any sense. that felt like they accidentally dropped in a scene from S1 into the middle of an episode from S3.

    She's talking about Keely you idiot 

  5. On 5/10/2023 at 3:28 PM, Pato del Muerto said:

    Beard doesn’t seem like a Joe Walsh guy. Beard seems like a Jan Akkerman guy. 

    He wasn't comparing Walsh and Page. He was just saying Walsh is UNDERRATED and Page is OVERRATED and Stairway is just an elaborate fingering exercise. Pay attention.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
  6. 2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

    That's not QC, that's engineering.

    I meant on all their products. After Cerberus got Remington, the product quality plummeted. Compare a new model 870 to a 20 year old Express. They aren't even in the same universe in terms of quality and craftsmanship. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    There are a bunch of sites that break down the nuances or various gun manufacturers by make, model, and most importantly production years.  Remington QC has gone to shit.  Their earlier lines for the 870 and 700 are much better.  You just have to know which years to avoid.  I have two pre-64 Winnies that sent me off in that direction...trying to make sure there was nothing weird or problematic about either.   

    The 700 issue covered nearly the whole production of that rifle and was only fixed by retrofitting a new safety as part of a recall. 

    Remington QC is objectively terrible. 

    • Haha 1
  8. 10 hours ago, 686 said:


    Tikka T3 in stainless steel for deer rifle and maybe T3 in a light chambering or T1 (rimfire)for small game. They are great actions, and can be upgraded when they’re older if they want (prefit aftermarket barrels, stocks, chassis, etc.). I follow hunting rifle trends and the Tikka T3 is basically displacing the Remington 700 as the “high quality bolt action that shoots great out of the box, and can be easily modified/customized easily later if so desired”.

    A vintage Remington 1100 or 870 in left hand used to be a great shotgun option, but the used market on them has gone up a bunch (like over $1k) since Remington has been screwing around / going bankrupt and people are snatching up / investing in the good older guns.

    Good recs thank you. I love the 870 but left handed is unobtainium. I also would love a left-handed Model 42 but I may as well wish for a magic unicorn. 

    I won't have a 700. I don't think they are safe and I don't trust them. I'm sure the vast majority are perfectly fine but I personally witnessed the safety discharge malfunction on one and we were very lucky the person holding the gun was practicing safe firearm handling at the time or somebody could have been killed. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  9. Back on topic:

    I need to invest in left-handed rifles and shotguns for my boys, both of whom are left-handed. Anybody on here left-handed who can share some accumulated wisdom on what works for you? I need a small-bore rifle for small game, deer rifle, and some sort of shotgun. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  10. 23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Yes.....except with respect to First and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, SCOTUS has been generally rational in its approach to apply them to modern circumstances.   What they have NOT done is establish a test that all regulations/legislation on such subject matter be consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of speech/search and seizure regulation," which naturally lends itself to "if there wasn't such a regulation/action in 1791, there can't be one now."  It's the utter folly of the intellectual bankruptcy that is "originalism," which is actually perhaps the most selective mode of constitutional "interpretation" imaginable, and if it WAS intellectually honest, would fall flat on its face.

    Bruen is pretty plainly written.  It's intellectually dishonest and disingenuous, but it's not hard to understand.  I think that the lower courts applying it are doing what they must to avoid running afoul of the SCOTUS's plain direction.  This is the natural end-point of this SCOTUS's perverse version of "originalism."  Bruen killed the idea of any further constitutional gun regulation.  It was an intentional murder, with full knowledge and intent as to its consequences by SCOTUS.

    The end point for all of this will be, eventually (not anytime soon...but it's now becoming inevitable) the repeal /complete modification of the 2nd Amendment.  Because right now, it is pretty much the only absolute, zero-compromise amendment we have (although the SCOTUS is also working hard to apply the First Amendment's religious freedom provision to allow an individual to act outside of any law they choose, so long as they claim "muh religion!", so stay tuned).

    I respectfully disagree. I think there are a lot of constitutional regulations you can pass post-Bruen. And I think some of the courts applying Bruen to strike down some laws have it wrong. But that's a different discussion. 

    6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Most people also didn't think that the SCOTUS would just flat-out void Roe v. Wade, but here we are.  Like I said, it won't happen soon - probably not in yours/my lifetime.  But it's being set up as the only alternative approach.  Either it's a gun free-for-all, or the 2A is functionally repealed.  It is apparently unique among all of our constitutional provisions as allowing zero balance for the public interest.  When you set up an all-or-nothing regime, one of those wins...until the other one does.  It's dumb, but here we are.

    Dobbs was a terrible decision for a lot of reasons

  11. 29 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    First of all, multiquote is a thing. Use it. 
     

    * Ridiculous, but that's not what HB2744 would do. It only restricts 18-20 year olds from semi-automatics larger than .22, along with sales to drunks, people subject to protective orders, etc. 

    ** Obviously

    *** False
    **** It is not.

    Most of what is in there needs additional legislation and enforcement to strengthen the law at the state level, but why would you want a ban on AR-15s chambered in .223 or 5.56?

    Let me Google that for you

    I disagree that it is. What are "AWs" and why do I supposedly want to capture them? 

    AWs = "assault weapons." What is the purpose of the proposed ban on semiautomatic rifles if they can still get AR-15s? It's a silly law that does nothing, written by people who don't understand guns. And there's no constitutional basis for denying civil rights to adults under the age of 21. 

    The NRA has made it clear that its opposition to red flag laws is based on their lack of due process. Show me one red flag law with a predeprivation hearing requirement. I bet those are constitutional. 

    24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Worth mentioning that the "historical tradition" was often highly restrictive and shows extreme latitude for states, territories and municipalities to adopt local control regimes that made sense locally. as famously demonstrated in the case of Earp v. Clanton, et al. (1881) 

    That's why you look to the historical tradition at the time the amendment was adopted, and not later attempts at gun control. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. 36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Well, when the SCOTUS just changed the playing field completely on what is "constitutional" to an INSANE standard that makes zero sense.....

    They set up a rule that limits all gun regulations to what was "historically regulated," while also NOT considering that those "historical" regulations applied to "arms" that were entirely different than the "arms" available today (nevermind them completely writing the "well regulated militia" clause out of the 2A as well).  You're actually helping to make my point -- when a rogue SCOTUS re-defines the 2A to allow for functionally ZERO regulation.....yeah, we're utterly fucked.

    There functionally ARE NO "constitutional laws" that can be passed, because 1) there was little in the way of firearms regulation in 1791, because 2) there was LITTLE FUCKING NEED for it.  We didn't need strong musket-control laws in the interest of public safety in 1791.  No serial numbers.  No age limits needed.  All that shit.  Read Bruen and realize that the NEW rule on the 2A makes your position absurd.

    kind of like the First Amendment and computers/internet, or the Fifth Amendment and modern surveillance equipment, etc. etc. And Bruen is no different than the Heller/McDonald 2A tests. Some courts are misapplying the test but that is what happens when the courts engaged in massive resistance to Heller. It will stabilize. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  13. 15 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Cry more.

    As I’ve made clear over there,  I’m not interested in engaging Gun prohibitionists who don’t know anything about this stuff. But gun safety is a gun owner problem and belongs on the gun owner thread. 

    Then why are you promoting a bill that is simultaneously overbroad and unconstitutional while underbroad and fails to capture AWs?

  14. On 5/7/2023 at 8:44 AM, Brisketexan said:


    Chaos and death is the goal. When you remember that, every single policy choice makes sense. And they couldn’t accomplish without the useful idiots who “stand in the breach and give no quarter!”

    We have chosen a path that can only end in one extreme or the other. Today, the extreme of “unfettered access to functionally every type of firearm for everyone of all ages at all times,” resulting in the expected body count, is the rule. It will continue to be, for a long, long time. But eventually, society will hit a breaking point. Not soon, but eventually. And the other extreme - functionally complete bam on personal firearms - will win out. Yes, the constitution will be amended, the whole deal.
    We COULD choose some middle path. As you pointed out, there have been hundreds of pieces of legislation offered that would provide just that (or portions of it). But for now, the extremists give no quarter. It’s working. They’re winning. Until someday, they lose everything. And in the process, they’ve cost people like me two things that are actually important: 1) my family’s reasonable safety and security (we aren’t safe at school, church, mall, Wal-mart, hospital….anywhere) and 2) eventually, my ability to own and possess firearms (I’ve shouldered a gun every year of my life since I was 5, both hunting and at the range). I would like a path that provides a reasonable measure of both…but the extremists won’t let me, so I get neither.
    And they think this is a good thing. I hate this place.

    Pass constitutional laws if you want change. Pass unconstitutional laws if you want more reaction and counterreaction from the people. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  15. On 5/7/2023 at 6:57 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Last post on this: it’s like safes- virtually every person on this thread believes that it’s our responsibility to secure guns safely when not in use. It is likewise our responsibility to use our political clout as a group to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. And BTW- the NRA believed that too, a generation ago. 
    But now, we support those who expand access- to allow unstable people and criminals access to weapons and arms as many people and places as we can, if it means we deny prohibitionists an inch. The result is chaos and death.  

    Simply not true. How many "red flag" laws has the NRA challenged in court?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. On 5/6/2023 at 10:37 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Hey @Anastasis one of the things I supposedly can’t name is HB2744. Want to wager on whether it even sees a floor vote, who stops it and why?

    I just read HB2744. Most of what it provides is already federal law. It's ban on giving rifles to 18-21 year olds is unconstitutional. And on its own terms it fails to ban AR-15s chambered in .223 or 5.56. So what idiot wrote this worthless law? 

  17. On 5/6/2023 at 10:00 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Oh I most certainly have not. Sure, some of you support some reform as a conjecture but when it’s nut cutting time you fall in line like the  useful idiots you are.

    Until gun owners stop opposing real life red flag law proposals because of paranoid delusions about jilted women  and fighting again other sensible things like waiting periods and legislative trade offs around atf registration that would save lives and protect our rights nothing will get better. Our culture will get more violent and more people will die for the sake of fetishistic, tribal gun worship.

    How are the Christmas cards coming, fellas?

    Bans on 18 year olds getting guns are unconstitutional. Red flag laws that do not have due process protections are unconstitutional. Red flag laws that have meaningful due process protections are constitutional, yet are nearly never proposed as laws. Why is that? 

  18. 2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

    Man we’ve had some crazy justifications for murder on this site in the past couple weeks. 
    You wouldn’t have objected to watching someone murder that man? Nothing fucked there

    7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

    He literally referred the man as deranged. I think there are plenty of steps that can be taken before choking someone to death.

     

    As I understand the law there were several moments during the confrontation where my use of potentially lethal force would have been lawful/justified. So, restraining somebody acting that way in a chokehold would be understandable. If they ended up passing away, but that was not the intention of the person who put him in a chokehold, then it's unfortunate but it happens. 

    I am a large man and this guy was the most aggressive person I've ever encountered and he had a level of malice you don't find in your typical bar fights or whatever we've all been in. He was talking about rape and murder and he was big, and he was strong. I was happy there was a peaceful resolution but it was touch and go. 

  19. 21 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

    You live here you see this every single day on the subway. It has never crossed my mind to put someone in a chokehold that slowly drained the life right out of them. There is no defending this. I have not been in a situation where anything like this has happened, but I would like to think I would have done something besides stand back and watch a man die.

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/jordan-neelys-death-what-we-know-about-subway-choke-hold.html

     

    In my eight years in DC there was one occasion where a clearly aggressive, violent and deranged person might have gotten shot if people had carry permits. The Metro was slow due to an outage and we were on the platform for about an hour. During that time period, this very muscular guy in his forties, homeless looking, kept following this group of college girls around loudly saying he wanted to show them a good time and they could either let him fuck them or he would rape them, right here right now. Of course somebody called the cops, but it took 20 minutes for them to show. I intervened when it was clear the girls were scared and he was physically herding them into a corner, and he completely lost it. He was screaming at me to mind my own business or he'd kill me and he got almost within arm's reach before I calmed him down to a low buzz by the time the cops arrived but it was scary and unpleasant. And even though there were dozens of people on the platform, I got no help whatsoever. Even the guy who had been with the girls peeled off and let them fend for themselves. The girls were very grateful and I told them they needed better friends in front of the guy.

     

    If a marine had choked him to death, I would not have objected. Although, candidly, I was really most concerned about being bitten or scratched. I doubted he had a weapon. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  20. 18 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

    You think the 192 is happening and the deal is closing? Serious question: why?

    Wait so now you are adding a condition, that the deal will close? I thought we were only discussing whether the 192 is real. I don't think there's any doubt it's real. Enjoy your hatwich. 

  21. On 4/27/2023 at 6:47 PM, shadow_operative said:

    a diatribe? lol. one paragraph about how S1 was great = a diatribe? lol okie dokie then.

    the thread police bullshit that's permeated this thread since S2 comes 100% from people who blindingly love everything about the show and who for some reason cannot handle anyone else having a differing opinion. it's beyond stupid, and all it ever accomplishes is more arguing and fighting. people are allowed to not have differing opinions. get over it. 

    everything you write is painful to read

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...