Bear 45/70
Regular Member
imported post
grishnav wrote:
grishnav wrote:
And both of you are morons.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Soliciting Contributions for Case Against Denver, CO
- Thread starter Gray Peterson
- Start date
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Bear's a troll too, but he's the fluffy, furry kind that's fun to play with and brings smiles to the faces of small children.
Bear 45/70
Regular Member
imported post
grishnav wrote:
grishnav wrote:
If I'm a troll, you are pimple on someone's rearend. Since when did it become against the rules to disagree with Lonnie? I don't remember his promotion to a god. Even if I missed the promotion, he would only be a minor god and anyone would be allowed to disagree with him. You intolerant jerks need to knock off the troll stuff. By the way, how many meets and picnics have you attended. I'll bet jarhead has attended more than you two and Lonnie combined.
scarlett1125
Regular Member
imported post
deanf wrote:
So, in your mind, you're an activist and Lonnie's an activist, but those of us who do the same thing in a larger setting are not?
It's funny. When I was in the girl scouts, I seem to remember that being at the meetings and going to camp was part of the deal. If I didn't do my part, I was not allowed to be a girl scout. Now, you're telling me that doing my part makes me less of an activist, but doing, in his own words, "what [he] can" makes Lonnie more of an activist? I'm not following your logic.
deanf wrote:
Exactly what is it that you think we do at these meetings? Leave our firearms in the car and walk around with our collective thumbs up our collective a$$es? We are doing exactly what you have described, and we are doing it by using the strength of numbers to dispel the myths about the scary gun owners.
So, in your mind, you're an activist and Lonnie's an activist, but those of us who do the same thing in a larger setting are not?
It's funny. When I was in the girl scouts, I seem to remember that being at the meetings and going to camp was part of the deal. If I didn't do my part, I was not allowed to be a girl scout. Now, you're telling me that doing my part makes me less of an activist, but doing, in his own words, "what [he] can" makes Lonnie more of an activist? I'm not following your logic.
fatalhubris
Regular Member
imported post
Machoduck wrote:
Since you asked, and I was bored
Starting from the top left
Details a little fuzzy but it looks like a silver dive badge in other words jarheads dive qualified and can swim a little.
Next ones easy crossed riffles = expert rifle (he can shoot a little)
Next to that looks like expert pistol (ok maybe more than a little)
The two gold targets = distinguished shooter (yea he can shoot)
Next row down are his campaign ribbons, I won’t try to list them all but hers just a few
Navy Cross, Purple Heart, Navy and Marine Corps Medal, Navy Achievement Medal, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service, Kosovo Campaign, UN Service Medal, NATO Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal. (If I missed any important ones and or screwed any up sorry)
After that is the birdie on the ball aka. the eagle globe and anchor (this ones a no duhhh)
The big red arrowhead is a unit patch for 2nd Marine Division.
The chevrons translate to gunny sergeant
The hash marks translate to 8+ years honorable service
Again sorry if I screwed anything up or omitted anything significant.
Now if you will excuse me ill go back to quietly minding my own.
Machoduck wrote:
Since you asked, and I was bored
Starting from the top left
Details a little fuzzy but it looks like a silver dive badge in other words jarheads dive qualified and can swim a little.
Next ones easy crossed riffles = expert rifle (he can shoot a little)
Next to that looks like expert pistol (ok maybe more than a little)
The two gold targets = distinguished shooter (yea he can shoot)
Next row down are his campaign ribbons, I won’t try to list them all but hers just a few
Navy Cross, Purple Heart, Navy and Marine Corps Medal, Navy Achievement Medal, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service, Kosovo Campaign, UN Service Medal, NATO Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal. (If I missed any important ones and or screwed any up sorry)
After that is the birdie on the ball aka. the eagle globe and anchor (this ones a no duhhh)
The big red arrowhead is a unit patch for 2nd Marine Division.
The chevrons translate to gunny sergeant
The hash marks translate to 8+ years honorable service
Again sorry if I screwed anything up or omitted anything significant.
Now if you will excuse me ill go back to quietly minding my own.
Bear 45/70
Regular Member
imported post
American Rattlesnake wrote:
American Rattlesnake wrote:
If you want to be a leader, you sure as hell need to attend meetings and functions or you just aren't much of a leader are you? Why can't you guys see this for what it is? Or are you blinded by the light?
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Bear 45/70 wrote:
I work at a company, and I've worked at said company for 18 months. Our shifts are set by seniority, and we have schedule preferences that we can always put in for. Since the beginning, my first preferred day off has ALWAYS been Sunday.
Last December, my company changed the hours of operations/days of operations (as in they opened up on Sundays), and as a result my days off generally fluctuated from Thursday/Friday to Monday/Tuesday. There were occasions where I did have Sunday off, and that's where I negotiated with a person with higher seniority to get that day off. Also, when those above me in seniority have seniority, they typically have things like kids, wife, and they don't want to change a large majority of the time.
Every month, the line requirements for my work changes, as in volume of incoming work, plus also attrition. There's attrition pulling in both directions, so where anyone gets fired or quits in lower seniority, it screws me over because my schedule changes to make up for that. It's like a bad conga line.
So for the last year I haven't had Sundays off on a frequent basis. Pretty much at that point, my only choice to attend the sunday gathers (which some offered to match my days off schedule, but I told them not to do that because that would screw over those who have M-F shifts or those who had more flexible job hours) is to find someone who's willing to trade (rare) or call into work and refuse to work, which will get me fired.
Having a job and being able to pay my bills versus being on call to every little open carry situation, attending every meeting, which requires things like gas and insurance, which also costs money which I won't have if I don't have a job.
If the question is whether or not my job is more important, or my attendance at the meeting, since the job pays my rent and my gas, the job is more important. Not everyone's lucky enough to be retired with plenty of time, or be lucky enough to have a Monday-Friday shift.
-Lonnie
Bear 45/70 wrote:
I have attended meetings, just not the ones that you and Jarhead seem to attend. Let's bring a little bit of my own perspective on this issue.
I work at a company, and I've worked at said company for 18 months. Our shifts are set by seniority, and we have schedule preferences that we can always put in for. Since the beginning, my first preferred day off has ALWAYS been Sunday.
Last December, my company changed the hours of operations/days of operations (as in they opened up on Sundays), and as a result my days off generally fluctuated from Thursday/Friday to Monday/Tuesday. There were occasions where I did have Sunday off, and that's where I negotiated with a person with higher seniority to get that day off. Also, when those above me in seniority have seniority, they typically have things like kids, wife, and they don't want to change a large majority of the time.
Every month, the line requirements for my work changes, as in volume of incoming work, plus also attrition. There's attrition pulling in both directions, so where anyone gets fired or quits in lower seniority, it screws me over because my schedule changes to make up for that. It's like a bad conga line.
So for the last year I haven't had Sundays off on a frequent basis. Pretty much at that point, my only choice to attend the sunday gathers (which some offered to match my days off schedule, but I told them not to do that because that would screw over those who have M-F shifts or those who had more flexible job hours) is to find someone who's willing to trade (rare) or call into work and refuse to work, which will get me fired.
Having a job and being able to pay my bills versus being on call to every little open carry situation, attending every meeting, which requires things like gas and insurance, which also costs money which I won't have if I don't have a job.
If the question is whether or not my job is more important, or my attendance at the meeting, since the job pays my rent and my gas, the job is more important. Not everyone's lucky enough to be retired with plenty of time, or be lucky enough to have a Monday-Friday shift.
-Lonnie
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Here's the definition of a troll, from TFD:
Now, let's break down your post. I only have to go as far as the first line, so it isn't a big deal:
Now to be a troll, your posting has to be one of two things:
1. Inflammatory; and
2. Deliberatly so.
I peronsally would also add that the goal of a troll is to be inflammatory rather than to further the discussion, and that the post must have elements of that. But for the sake of simplicity, I'll just stick with the dictionary definition.
So, the two questions are: Is calling me a "moron" and a "pimple on someone's rearend" inflammatory?
I do believe so. Anyone disagree?
The next question becomes: Were you deliberatly inflammatory, or was it just an accident?
Well, since this is neither the first, nor likely the last, instance of your (imho) rather childish behavior, I have to assume that you are either:
1. Chronically socially inept, in which case, my sincere condolances; or
2. Spewing this crap intentionally.
So, there you have it. Meets the definition of a troll. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
I don't think it's against the rules to disagree with Lonnie, unless I missed something.
However, there do seem to be a few rules that you both must have missed at some point:
The are all here. I would encourage you to review them.
[/font]
I don't remember the promotion either, but I haven't been around as long as you anyway, so if you don't remember it, it's unlikely my memory makes much of a difference.
lol. For some reason, I can't stop giggling at being called intolerant by Bear.
So let's see... Is "intorlerant jerk" spoken generally, or directed at me?
If directed at me, is it a peronsal attack? Inflammatory?
I don't really take it personally, since this is just an interweb forum, after all, but a lot of people unfortuantely do. And get worked up. And then we have threads like this.
Either way, I'll say this:
I'm a very tolerant person. Probably more tolerant than Bear. I called Jarhead a troll because he's acting, IMHO, like a troll. Not in the first few posts, mind you. Initially, jarhead did raise some legitimate concerns. However, his posts quickly degenerated into little more than a thinly veiled temper tantrum and name calling session. That, my humble fellow interweb poster, is trollish behavior. Jarhead also seems to have a chronic problem understand how this is a Colorado issue and not a Washington issue. Since it's plainly obvious to anyone with half a clue, I have to either assume that Jarhead is intentionally reamining ignorant of the issue (trollish behavior), or that he truly has some sort of disabillity which prevents him from "getting it." I've never met him personally, but he did manage to sign on to an internet forum and post a number of messages, some of which demonstrate thought, research, and reasoning into a issue, so flatly asssuming he's just an idiot would be intellectually dishonest.
I'm left, again, with troll.
In which state?
I think I've only been to two in Washington, one of which I organized. I organized several in Oregon, and atended all the ones I organized. Somebody else also organized a few that I attended in Oregon. All in all, I've probably been to 10 or slightly less.
He probably has. And you're a good man if you find someone dumb enough to take that bet!
Either way, how was it revelant again?
Now I'm the one feeding the trolls. And breaking the rules.
I'll stop it. *slaps self on wrist*
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Aww, cute little fluffly troll! *pet pet pet*
Here's the definition of a troll, from TFD:
Now, let's break down your post. I only have to go as far as the first line, so it isn't a big deal:
Now to be a troll, your posting has to be one of two things:
1. Inflammatory; and
2. Deliberatly so.
I peronsally would also add that the goal of a troll is to be inflammatory rather than to further the discussion, and that the post must have elements of that. But for the sake of simplicity, I'll just stick with the dictionary definition.
So, the two questions are: Is calling me a "moron" and a "pimple on someone's rearend" inflammatory?
I do believe so. Anyone disagree?
The next question becomes: Were you deliberatly inflammatory, or was it just an accident?
Well, since this is neither the first, nor likely the last, instance of your (imho) rather childish behavior, I have to assume that you are either:
1. Chronically socially inept, in which case, my sincere condolances; or
2. Spewing this crap intentionally.
So, there you have it. Meets the definition of a troll. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
I don't think it's against the rules to disagree with Lonnie, unless I missed something.
However, there do seem to be a few rules that you both must have missed at some point:
[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]
The are all here. I would encourage you to review them.
[/font]
I don't remember the promotion either, but I haven't been around as long as you anyway, so if you don't remember it, it's unlikely my memory makes much of a difference.
lol. For some reason, I can't stop giggling at being called intolerant by Bear.
So let's see... Is "intorlerant jerk" spoken generally, or directed at me?
If directed at me, is it a peronsal attack? Inflammatory?
I don't really take it personally, since this is just an interweb forum, after all, but a lot of people unfortuantely do. And get worked up. And then we have threads like this.
Either way, I'll say this:
I'm a very tolerant person. Probably more tolerant than Bear. I called Jarhead a troll because he's acting, IMHO, like a troll. Not in the first few posts, mind you. Initially, jarhead did raise some legitimate concerns. However, his posts quickly degenerated into little more than a thinly veiled temper tantrum and name calling session. That, my humble fellow interweb poster, is trollish behavior. Jarhead also seems to have a chronic problem understand how this is a Colorado issue and not a Washington issue. Since it's plainly obvious to anyone with half a clue, I have to either assume that Jarhead is intentionally reamining ignorant of the issue (trollish behavior), or that he truly has some sort of disabillity which prevents him from "getting it." I've never met him personally, but he did manage to sign on to an internet forum and post a number of messages, some of which demonstrate thought, research, and reasoning into a issue, so flatly asssuming he's just an idiot would be intellectually dishonest.
I'm left, again, with troll.
In which state?
I think I've only been to two in Washington, one of which I organized. I organized several in Oregon, and atended all the ones I organized. Somebody else also organized a few that I attended in Oregon. All in all, I've probably been to 10 or slightly less.
He probably has. And you're a good man if you find someone dumb enough to take that bet!
Either way, how was it revelant again?
Now I'm the one feeding the trolls. And breaking the rules.
I'll stop it. *slaps self on wrist*
Bear 45/70
Regular Member
imported post
grishnav wrote:
By your own definition , you calling me a troll makes you a troll. God what a jackass. Your god complex makes you completely blind the the actual facts of the issue. I just love how you self rightous turkeys are great at accusing other of being troll when they do what you do. Pretty two faced.
grishnav wrote:
By your own definition , you calling me a troll makes you a troll. God what a jackass. Your god complex makes you completely blind the the actual facts of the issue. I just love how you self rightous turkeys are great at accusing other of being troll when they do what you do. Pretty two faced.
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
Bear 45/70 wrote:
/keeps slapping self on wrists...
//I think we need an OT forum where we can bash on each other all we want for hours on end to waste time. That would be awesome.
Bear 45/70 wrote:
So much I could say, but I must refrain. I think (hope?) that the thread speaks for itself.
/keeps slapping self on wrists...
//I think we need an OT forum where we can bash on each other all we want for hours on end to waste time. That would be awesome.
Bear 45/70
Regular Member
imported post
grishnav wrote:
grishnav wrote:
Yeah, the morons are taking over the world.
Jared
Regular Member
imported post
jarhead1055 wrote:
Lonnie is telling the whole truth. He has a lot of friends in Colorado and the incident he had only served to reinforce that he chooses to pick a battle with Colorado. If he never wants to lift a finger again for WA then that's his perogative (although he still will).
There is no reason for you to hijack his thread about asking for donations for Colorado.
If you cared so much than you would do more than just "contribute" to this forum.
Why would you knock someone who has done a lot for WA and OR because he isn't completely fighting to turn WA around.
Your being unreasonable, there is no reason to be this way to him. If you don't want to contribute money to CO then you don't have to, but that's no reason to go off on him.
Good job at hijacking this thread.
jarhead1055 wrote:
Lonnie is telling the whole truth. He has a lot of friends in Colorado and the incident he had only served to reinforce that he chooses to pick a battle with Colorado. If he never wants to lift a finger again for WA then that's his perogative (although he still will).
There is no reason for you to hijack his thread about asking for donations for Colorado.
If you cared so much than you would do more than just "contribute" to this forum.
Why would you knock someone who has done a lot for WA and OR because he isn't completely fighting to turn WA around.
Your being unreasonable, there is no reason to be this way to him. If you don't want to contribute money to CO then you don't have to, but that's no reason to go off on him.
Good job at hijacking this thread.
jarhead1911A
New member
imported post
This is not about hijacking a thread, Its about the fact that lonnie's incident in WA has nothing todo with CO and how do we know if he is telling the truth? He is unwilling to produce paperwork and he is unable to provide a direct connection that proves that nothing he could have done would have avoided his situation.
We are all just tired of his drama queen BS plain and simple. Its all about lonnie it would seem. Had his misfortune happened in CO id be all over it to support him but it did not and he is just looking for someone to blame so he can be the drama queen victim once again.
This is not about hijacking a thread, Its about the fact that lonnie's incident in WA has nothing todo with CO and how do we know if he is telling the truth? He is unwilling to produce paperwork and he is unable to provide a direct connection that proves that nothing he could have done would have avoided his situation.
We are all just tired of his drama queen BS plain and simple. Its all about lonnie it would seem. Had his misfortune happened in CO id be all over it to support him but it did not and he is just looking for someone to blame so he can be the drama queen victim once again.
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
jarhead1055 wrote:
You are failling to understand. Perhaps you should ask clarifying questions, instead of merely stating falsehoods over and over hoping they will come true.
This is a reasonable concern. Though I myself trust Lonnie, we have to admit that he hasn't produced any paperwork yet. Could just be that he's busy. Could be a lot of things. I trust Lonnie, so until something proves otherwise, I'm on board.
This is completely irrelevant, and probaly related to how you don't understand why this incident gives him standing in Colorado. I wish I could articulate it for you, but I don't think I can.
You and Bear?
Please don't speak for me. I'm sure Mike probably wouldn't appreciate you speaking for the forum, either.
Yet, your continual bitch is that he's wrong for doing it simply because the incident happened in WA and not CO, even though the logical connection to CO is (apparently) plainly obvious to just about everyone else here. I just don't get it. And I don't know how I or anyone else could explain it to you further. But we're trying. Really hard. Read between the lines a little.
If you don't trust Lonnie, that's one thing. I won't try to make you. If you'd trust him with documentation, then we can hope someday he'll post some up and get your support. But knocking him for using his own time and money in the furtherance gun rights just because it's not a state that affects or helps you? Incredibly selfish, at best.
Please, just let it lie...
jarhead1055 wrote:
You are failling to understand. Perhaps you should ask clarifying questions, instead of merely stating falsehoods over and over hoping they will come true.
This is a reasonable concern. Though I myself trust Lonnie, we have to admit that he hasn't produced any paperwork yet. Could just be that he's busy. Could be a lot of things. I trust Lonnie, so until something proves otherwise, I'm on board.
This is completely irrelevant, and probaly related to how you don't understand why this incident gives him standing in Colorado. I wish I could articulate it for you, but I don't think I can.
You and Bear?
Please don't speak for me. I'm sure Mike probably wouldn't appreciate you speaking for the forum, either.
I really wish I knew how to spell it out for you. The drama-queen-ism is tactical. Courts like victims. In order to sue, you have to have standing. One way to get standing is to be arrested. Another way is to have an incident occur that caused you some kind of harm. He's leveraging an incident the best he can to further open carry rights. It just so happens that his luck (or lack thereof) has given him, if you will, an excuse to sue Colorado. When somebody tries to kill him in WA and he's not allowed to carry because of a rule, then he can sue in WA. Until that day...
Yet, your continual bitch is that he's wrong for doing it simply because the incident happened in WA and not CO, even though the logical connection to CO is (apparently) plainly obvious to just about everyone else here. I just don't get it. And I don't know how I or anyone else could explain it to you further. But we're trying. Really hard. Read between the lines a little.
If you don't trust Lonnie, that's one thing. I won't try to make you. If you'd trust him with documentation, then we can hope someday he'll post some up and get your support. But knocking him for using his own time and money in the furtherance gun rights just because it's not a state that affects or helps you? Incredibly selfish, at best.
Please, just let it lie...
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Yeah, they sure are.
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Yeah, they sure are.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
jarhead1055 wrote:
He won't believe me if I produce the documentation. He has too much emotionally invested in personally attacking me and taking potshots at me.
I refuse to be a party to your erratic behavior, Marc. I produce the paperwork, then you'll demand to speak with the other persons in the vehicle to see if the events are true. You'll continue to move the goalposts. You ask a question, you get an answer, you don't like the answer, you ignore the question and then lob another accusation at me. You've done this time and time again.
The particular people that need to know the details, and who have asked me nicely, have and will get the details that they need to look it up. You, on the other hand, will never get the information from me because all you've done is fill up this thread with nonsense, you've personally attacked me, and so on. Do you really think I'm going to drive the courthouse, pay for not only the record of the incident, but also possibly having to pull up other examples criminal records (the person was arrested again for theft just last month) of the person that rammed the car I was in, just to prove to you that the person is a career criminal who has no respect for the lives and work of other people?
We're done, Marc. This conversation is over, finished.
jarhead1055 wrote:
Perhaps because every explanation that I've ever made has been discarded as "untruths, lies, and omissions".
He won't believe me if I produce the documentation. He has too much emotionally invested in personally attacking me and taking potshots at me.
I refuse to be a party to your erratic behavior, Marc. I produce the paperwork, then you'll demand to speak with the other persons in the vehicle to see if the events are true. You'll continue to move the goalposts. You ask a question, you get an answer, you don't like the answer, you ignore the question and then lob another accusation at me. You've done this time and time again.
The particular people that need to know the details, and who have asked me nicely, have and will get the details that they need to look it up. You, on the other hand, will never get the information from me because all you've done is fill up this thread with nonsense, you've personally attacked me, and so on. Do you really think I'm going to drive the courthouse, pay for not only the record of the incident, but also possibly having to pull up other examples criminal records (the person was arrested again for theft just last month) of the person that rammed the car I was in, just to prove to you that the person is a career criminal who has no respect for the lives and work of other people?
We're done, Marc. This conversation is over, finished.
jarhead1911A
New member
imported post
Its about time you quit lonnie didnt take long enough and for the record i did not SAY EVERYONE on the board i said OTHERS meaning more than just me. You should be prepaired to back your request for money. Plain and simple but you have not so to me your just someone on tv trying to sell me something i dont want or need.
But hey if you can get people to blindly follow you then good for you i am not that wild with my money and if i am going to back something especialy with my money i want proof.
but i guess i would be more apt to send money if i actually KNEW WHO YOU WERE face to face. So pull your skirt down and quit crying over this. Oh whats wrong princess did i hurt your feelings?
OR are you going to actually back your claim with fact and paperwork for all to see?
You said we are done end of conversation? Who are you to decide what i discuss on this board?
As usual you make yourself out to be more important that you really are. I dont care how many of your blind supporters PM me or try and tell me i am out of line for all to see.
I refuse to buy into your BS until you PROVE with black and white proof of a actual connection between your so called suite and CO. Please break out the crayons and draw us all a clear picture of how you came to the conclution that CO is responsible for the actions that happened to you in WA?
Its about time you quit lonnie didnt take long enough and for the record i did not SAY EVERYONE on the board i said OTHERS meaning more than just me. You should be prepaired to back your request for money. Plain and simple but you have not so to me your just someone on tv trying to sell me something i dont want or need.
But hey if you can get people to blindly follow you then good for you i am not that wild with my money and if i am going to back something especialy with my money i want proof.
but i guess i would be more apt to send money if i actually KNEW WHO YOU WERE face to face. So pull your skirt down and quit crying over this. Oh whats wrong princess did i hurt your feelings?
OR are you going to actually back your claim with fact and paperwork for all to see?
You said we are done end of conversation? Who are you to decide what i discuss on this board?
As usual you make yourself out to be more important that you really are. I dont care how many of your blind supporters PM me or try and tell me i am out of line for all to see.
I refuse to buy into your BS until you PROVE with black and white proof of a actual connection between your so called suite and CO. Please break out the crayons and draw us all a clear picture of how you came to the conclution that CO is responsible for the actions that happened to you in WA?
jarhead1911A
New member
imported post
To make this really simple lonnie i will be more than happy to drop this whole thing if you can draw a straight line in your logic as to how a accident in WA is CO fault?
Even if you were not allowed to take your gun to CO your friend could have brought it to you at the airport yet that was not done. So i have a problem with your decitions that lead you to believe that CO is repsonsible if anything you are just as quilty as CO and what upsets me is that you are asking for money from people because you did not exaust every option to protect yourself.
So there i am asking the basic questions all id like to see is the basic answers.
To make this really simple lonnie i will be more than happy to drop this whole thing if you can draw a straight line in your logic as to how a accident in WA is CO fault?
Even if you were not allowed to take your gun to CO your friend could have brought it to you at the airport yet that was not done. So i have a problem with your decitions that lead you to believe that CO is repsonsible if anything you are just as quilty as CO and what upsets me is that you are asking for money from people because you did not exaust every option to protect yourself.
So there i am asking the basic questions all id like to see is the basic answers.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
jarhead1055 wrote:
MachoDuck explained this the best:
Here is how basic I can go with this. Read very carefully, try understand every word, and if you have a question, ask instead of attack.
We went over this in the conference with you, me, Steve and just_a_car. The car ramming incident happened in Washington State. That by itself gives me NO standing to sue Colorado. Do you get it now? This is not a personal injury lawsuit (which you accused me of running here). If it was a personal injury lawsuit I would have simply called one of the numbers I see on TV "Have you been injured in an accident? Call for a free consultation, you may be eligible to have the case taken on contingency".
The car ramming incident provides an exclamation point :exclaim: to my own personal reasons for wanting to go after the state or Denver to either A) Have my Florida license recognized regardless of my state citizenship B) Allow me to apply for a CHL to carry there concealed or C) Strike down Denver's OC ban. The existence of the three laws in concert, plus the regular travel there, gives me along with others similarly situated, STANDING in the 10th Circuit to sue Colorado and the City/County of Denver because they are violating my Second and Fourteenth Amendment Rights as an out of state visitor to their state and city. My personal reason for wanting to fight this battle is because Colorado and Denver should not be violating a person's Second Amendment rights, and I am at least yearly visitor to Denver and adversely affected.
At the risk of repeating myself, the car ramming incident here in Washington would NOT have changed the facts of the Denver and Colorado's Second Amendment violations. The fact that they just exist is enough and that I visit is enough. Do you understand this?
If the car ramming incident had NOT had occurred, I would have still posted a thread asking for funds. You have little to no understanding of legal theory, of the idea of standing or what it means. This is why you keep asking questions like what you're doing over and over again, when it's been explained to you and it seems to go over your head.
This isn't a personal injury lawsuit against Colorado like you claim, it's a CIVIL RIGHTS lawsuit, which doesn't allow personal injury damage awards unless a state actor (that being the Police Department or state patrol) actually commit physical or constitutional harm towards me not in self defense and violation of civil rights. Your situation in Puyallup with them detaining you is damage awardable. The most I would be eligible for in Colorado is:
A) A ruling whether or not three legal situations in concert violate my second amendment rights as a visitor to the City of Denver and State of Colorado under Saenz and Ward precedents.
B) If the court agrees with A, The federal court would proscribe the proper relief (striking down the Denver OC ban, or striking down "no non-resident licenses" provision). At that point, the losing side can appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Salt Lake City.
C) If we (myself and my attorney) win, under the same provisions of federal statute, we can put in a demand for attorneys fees and court costs payment from the state and the city. Great example here
Nothing in court is 100% guaranteed. Heller wasn't a guaranteed victory either until it ended up in the Supreme Court. We got more than we asked for with the extensive ruling that Justice Scalia made in regards to describing our right to carry firearms for our personal protection. Also, many of the cities and anti-gun states are starting to take a position of just repealing the law to comply (Morton Grove, Wilmette, and other suburbs of Chicago in Illinois) with the lawsuit rather than create bad case law for themselves at a higher appeals level. Whether or not Denver or Colorado will do so remains to be seen. Whatever it takes to win, whether it be a court victory or a capitulation, I'm all for.
I certainly hope that this entire flame fest was a misunderstanding of my intent on your part.
jarhead1055 wrote:
MachoDuck explained this the best:
Here is how basic I can go with this. Read very carefully, try understand every word, and if you have a question, ask instead of attack.
We went over this in the conference with you, me, Steve and just_a_car. The car ramming incident happened in Washington State. That by itself gives me NO standing to sue Colorado. Do you get it now? This is not a personal injury lawsuit (which you accused me of running here). If it was a personal injury lawsuit I would have simply called one of the numbers I see on TV "Have you been injured in an accident? Call for a free consultation, you may be eligible to have the case taken on contingency".
The car ramming incident provides an exclamation point :exclaim: to my own personal reasons for wanting to go after the state or Denver to either A) Have my Florida license recognized regardless of my state citizenship B) Allow me to apply for a CHL to carry there concealed or C) Strike down Denver's OC ban. The existence of the three laws in concert, plus the regular travel there, gives me along with others similarly situated, STANDING in the 10th Circuit to sue Colorado and the City/County of Denver because they are violating my Second and Fourteenth Amendment Rights as an out of state visitor to their state and city. My personal reason for wanting to fight this battle is because Colorado and Denver should not be violating a person's Second Amendment rights, and I am at least yearly visitor to Denver and adversely affected.
At the risk of repeating myself, the car ramming incident here in Washington would NOT have changed the facts of the Denver and Colorado's Second Amendment violations. The fact that they just exist is enough and that I visit is enough. Do you understand this?
If the car ramming incident had NOT had occurred, I would have still posted a thread asking for funds. You have little to no understanding of legal theory, of the idea of standing or what it means. This is why you keep asking questions like what you're doing over and over again, when it's been explained to you and it seems to go over your head.
This isn't a personal injury lawsuit against Colorado like you claim, it's a CIVIL RIGHTS lawsuit, which doesn't allow personal injury damage awards unless a state actor (that being the Police Department or state patrol) actually commit physical or constitutional harm towards me not in self defense and violation of civil rights. Your situation in Puyallup with them detaining you is damage awardable. The most I would be eligible for in Colorado is:
A) A ruling whether or not three legal situations in concert violate my second amendment rights as a visitor to the City of Denver and State of Colorado under Saenz and Ward precedents.
B) If the court agrees with A, The federal court would proscribe the proper relief (striking down the Denver OC ban, or striking down "no non-resident licenses" provision). At that point, the losing side can appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Salt Lake City.
C) If we (myself and my attorney) win, under the same provisions of federal statute, we can put in a demand for attorneys fees and court costs payment from the state and the city. Great example here
Nothing in court is 100% guaranteed. Heller wasn't a guaranteed victory either until it ended up in the Supreme Court. We got more than we asked for with the extensive ruling that Justice Scalia made in regards to describing our right to carry firearms for our personal protection. Also, many of the cities and anti-gun states are starting to take a position of just repealing the law to comply (Morton Grove, Wilmette, and other suburbs of Chicago in Illinois) with the lawsuit rather than create bad case law for themselves at a higher appeals level. Whether or not Denver or Colorado will do so remains to be seen. Whatever it takes to win, whether it be a court victory or a capitulation, I'm all for.
I certainly hope that this entire flame fest was a misunderstanding of my intent on your part.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
imported post
This thread has deviated far from its intended purposes and I am closing it.
However, I would like to make a few points.
1) Moving the bar in ANY state by improving the ability of non-residents to carry (OC or CC) is a GOOD THING! This is a topic that Mike has worked on in the past so Lonnie's request is definitely on-topic in that regard.
2) Jarhead and Bear ... I am not sure what your problem is with Lonnie IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE! Regardless of attendance or the other problems you guys have, why attack him so hard on THIS ISSUE?
3) This thread has seen EVERYONE break the "No Personal Attack" rule. The words "moron" and "princess" and "drama queen" all made cameo appearances and some were used so often that they actually got screen credit. THIS HAS TO STOP.
4) If Lonnie wants to post a new thread asking for support he is free to do so. If you want to post there your REASONS AND LOGIC for disagreement, that is fine too but NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS FROM ANYONE! (And that includes thread hi-jacking)
5) We are seeing more and more of this in-fighting. Please do not do the anti's job for them and make us look like angry people!
This thread has deviated far from its intended purposes and I am closing it.
However, I would like to make a few points.
1) Moving the bar in ANY state by improving the ability of non-residents to carry (OC or CC) is a GOOD THING! This is a topic that Mike has worked on in the past so Lonnie's request is definitely on-topic in that regard.
2) Jarhead and Bear ... I am not sure what your problem is with Lonnie IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE! Regardless of attendance or the other problems you guys have, why attack him so hard on THIS ISSUE?
3) This thread has seen EVERYONE break the "No Personal Attack" rule. The words "moron" and "princess" and "drama queen" all made cameo appearances and some were used so often that they actually got screen credit. THIS HAS TO STOP.
4) If Lonnie wants to post a new thread asking for support he is free to do so. If you want to post there your REASONS AND LOGIC for disagreement, that is fine too but NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS FROM ANYONE! (And that includes thread hi-jacking)
5) We are seeing more and more of this in-fighting. Please do not do the anti's job for them and make us look like angry people!