monkeylizard

The part he left off is that he came back and slashed her tires and keyed her door.  :D

Pizza Perfect. There's one in Bellevue and one on 21st behind Vandy.       <<drops the mic>>       This thread is closed.

That's the only place I see it. The /nosleep subreddit is for horror fiction. Anything else that references staircases cites the /nosleep subreddit as a source, if it cites anything at all.

Actually, JMB developed the .50 BMG round for anti-aircraft purposes after WWI. Fixed-wing, not helis. It was of course used in the M2, which was vehicle mounted for AA purposes and aircraft mounted for, well, I guess you'd call that AA too. :) Our smart GIs figured out that the M2 worked pretty darn well against ground targets too, but it was first intended for AA use.   I don't really know what Barrett had in mind when he developed the M82, whether it was meant as anti-personnel or anti-light vehicle. It's of course used for both.

Sorry about your Chihuahua. When I hit the fire water, I get crazy.

They're saying that El Chapo's intention in having the rifle was to take down helicopters, not that taking down helis was the intention of the existence of the rifle.  

  It's hard to take that one seriously.

It's about a mountain clan in modern-day Kentucky living up on their mountain. Only problem is that "their" mountain is apparently owned by someone else. That someone else is a timber company who wants them off the mountain so logging can begin. The local Sheriff doesn't want any part of evicting them, but he has a job to do. Hilarity Pandemonium follows.   It's going to be a bit of an anti-corporate thing with the timber guys saying stuff like "Sheriff, get them off that mountain so we can make our money." and the mountain people saying "they're not kicking us off our  mountain!". But it doesn't seem to gloss over the fact that the mountain people are kind of hypocritical assholes. They don't want the outside world's way of living imposed on them, but feel perfectly fine riding their muddy ATVs through the town store and causing mayhem in the lives of people who choose to live differently than them.

Yeah, that's Voldemort, King of Douches, Grand Emperor of Jackholes everywhere.

I didn't read his post as supporting 1359, but rather pointing out the difference in how a 1359 v. trespassing would be prosecuted.   Both are misdemeanors which means it has to be a citizens arrest or a police officer has to witness it for themselves. Barring "No Trespassing" signs, there's no way for an officer to witness trespassing (because they don't know a particular person is on premises w/o permission) without the property owner/manager openly saying to a police officer "monkeylizard is trespassing. I asked him to leave and he didn't. Arrest him. I'm pressing charges." That's alos only going to work if he asks me to leave and I don't. If he never asked me to leave, just called the cops, I haven't trespassed. He can ask me to leave in the presence of the officer, or ask the officer to ask me to leave. If I don't, then I'm trespassing.That owner/manager then has to appear in court to accuse me of trespassing.That translates to a whole lot more hassle for the owner operator than a -1359 violation which the officer can witness for himself. He can then accuse me of it in open court and the owner/manager never has to get involved beyond a simple phone call about a MWAG.   Did I get that right?

You don't think that's intentional, do you?

  So, they're like the Muslim version of Baptists?  :D   :hiding:

Kinda surprised those hippies don't already have that law on the books.

Yep. Let's not add another goofy law to try to correct a goofy law. Let's just get rid of the first one. But then legislators and their attorney buddies would have nothing to do if they made the laws simple.

Outsiders premieres next Tuesday night (Jan 26th) on WGN. Anyone else planning to watch?   http://wgnamerica.com/series/outsiders

But you do discard it if you're a lawyer going to use it in court to support a law that's being challenged, when the courts have shown that argument to be less than sound in the past.

  Except that same argument was used to support Jim Crow laws and we see how that worked out.

  Doh! yes, I meant 1359. Post corrected. Thanks!

  That will probably be the first person to pee his pants, hunker down behind the first piece of concealment he can find, have a good teary-eyed "Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!" moment, then maybe give himself Glock-butt to top it all off.

  True, as long as they aren't all posted.

  It was about a half-century ago in certain parts of our nation. It was exceedingly difficult for black citizens to travel through much of the South because hotels wouldn't allow them to stay. In a purely academic world, the free market would have corrected that by an enterprising person opening hotels that accepted black guests. But in the real world, he couldn't get the building permits or business license approved by the city/county. Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   What if you found yourself where no grocer would sell to a person of whatever your skin color is, or your religious persuasion, or why not the color of your hair? Not one within 200 miles. No other business will deal with you either. Think you'll move? Hope you have good friends because the U-Haul guy isn't renting a truck to you. Need to stop along the way for gas? Good luck. Going to complain to the local Sheriff? He's the grocer's brother. Besides, it's their right to deny you service, correct? Their property, their rules, and all.   Now change that around to where every business and government owned building is posted with a gunbuster for as far as the eye can see. Do you or do you not then have a 2nd amendment right to carry? On paper, sure...in the real world, no.     All that said, this whole proposed bill about liability if posted is utter crap. Just repeal 39-17-1359 and let's be done with it.

  Except that it's not that plain and simple when it comes to a business open to the public. A business owner can't make his or her own rule that Hispanics aren't permitted, or that Jews aren't permitted, or that wheelchairs aren't permitted. I'm not saying that carrying a firearm should be protected (and I'm not saying it shouldn't be), but it's clearly not as simple as "my ball, my rules".

Why did they have to specifically single out BLACK bears? #PolarBearLivesMatter.

  Did he have you point your gun at his face so he could determine your eye dominance?

You're preaching to the choir and arguing with a stump. machinist91 is no more.