This excludes all the ipv4 ips that have a 0 in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th octets. Sorry but we're going to have to revoke your Network Engineering credentials.
"The cradle of our democracy" refers to Washington DC in particular which is directly governed by the House/Senate. It also consistently ranks as one of the top cities in crime in the US by almost any metric (although ranking crime by city gets murky). Additionally it is notoriously poorly governed and has some really strange local laws that are almost entirely nationally political in origin. It also doesn't really help that the people living in D.C. get a diminished political voice by default.
I don't know if there's really grander conclusions to make other than having people govern a city that have no vested interest in the locals, with their actual constituents possibly 1000s of miles away, is a terrible idea. As for what it says about our government as a whole, I really think it's a better case for MORE democracy for the locals in D.C. rather than an indictment of the idea...
Goes further back than that. In the late 90s early 2000s basically all 3 of the MMOs on the market were subscription models (Ultima, Everquest, and Warcraft are the ones that spring to my mind). Essentially a pay per time scheme where if you were playing the game you paid for it monthly.
This guy is just so far down the modern game industry rabbit hole he forgot that it wasn't as profitable as the soul sucking microtransaction/whaling hellscape that's become the norm.
Threads like this make me miss the sort by controversial. Oh well. If you have chores, or something else to do, maybe go do that instead of reading this thread. It's mostly shit slinging and people straw manning one another.
If anyone else came here to just talk about stuff, I'm willing to talk about how great cats and dogs are. Also open to hearing you out if you don't like cats or dogs, but I want you to know that I strongly disagree with your opinion.
Federal courts in the decade since have found many restrictions on the right to own and use weapons perfectly congruent with that decision. Heller merely says the government can't enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.
From the introductory paragraph in your own link. Again this isn't whether most Americans can posses weapons but does a domestic abuse restraining order rise to the level of due process. Which oddly falls in line with the second paragraph of the source you linked:
Courts have found that Heller does not preclude laws that prohibit anyone younger than 21 from buying guns in retail stores; laws that bar people who committed a single nonviolent felony from ever owning a gun; laws that severely restrict the ability to carry a gun outside the home; laws that ban commonly owned magazines of a certain capacity; or laws that require handguns to incorporate untested, expensive, and unreliable "microstamping" technology.
There's nothing I found in the article you linked which claims that the 2nd amendment is an absolute right that cannot be revoked. You're arguing something that simply isn't a thing and avoiding the actual question at hand.
I think there's subtleties that you're ignoring to push an agenda. I do think it's important to understand the question on the table though. The question isn't what rights you have, but when is the government allowed to take away those rights.
Maybe we should take a step back. Do you think the government can revoke a person's 2nd amendment rights? For example do prisoners have the right have a shiv in their cell? The question posed in this instance is whether or not a restraining order for domestic assault rises to the level of due process for taking away that right. It's already firmly written into law that the government can leverage due process to take away rights. Unless you're arguing that it is an absolute right, and we should all be allowed to have nuclear bombs, and prisoners should be allowed to have shivs, then I think you're missing the point.
You also seem to have a very tenuous definition of the 2nd amendment that you're willing to change when it doesn't fit your needs. It seems like you might want to think it through a bit more, and perhaps try to get at the root of the question at hand, instead of spouting that everyone should be allowed to have arms no matter what. The implication of that statement is a bit terrifying, and is well outside of our current legal adjudication of the 2nd amendment.
Where are you getting that well regulated means well armed? It meant, and still means, trained, able to take orders, and battlefield ready. Where do you think the term "regulars" comes from in the context of historical warfare and what do you think that term means?
Did you throughly misunderstand collective rights theory or something? Could you possibly point me to the interpretation where it claims "well regulated" means "well armed" in the context of the 2nd amendment? I certainly couldn't find any sources to back that claim and it seems like you might have pulled it out of your backside.
You should read the article because it's way fucking crazier than you think:
Sources told WTVY that Michael Halstead informed officers that they had put Logan’s body into the freezer on October 11. The sources claimed that Headland Police failed to find the body which was allegedly wrapped up in blankets and tarpaulin. Halstead was also arrested that day and jailed for ten days for failing to show up to court on domestic abuse charges.
The police KNEW there was a body in the freezer because the dad TOLD them. The police failed to find the body they knew was on the property IN A FREEZER.
How it got in the freezer in the first place? No ine can really say not even the guy who put it there:
Sheriff Blankenship said that Halstead claimed to have had a manic episode and couldn’t remember how the body got into the freezer.
So yes it's even crazier. It's not really clear from the article what the cause of death was, but a bipolar dad that doesn't remember exactly why they put a body in a freezer is a pretty solid suspect. Shit is absolutely wild and I'm just sitting here wondering how many freezers they had on the property for the police to not find it AFTER BEING TOLD IT WAS THERE.
I think their really, and I cannot stress this enough, paper thin argument was that Palestinian isn't a race per se. They also are ignoring the very clear intention that is discrimination based on nationality which is illegal in most cases in the US (see customs and border patrol for exceptions that shouldn't be granted but are in fact institutionally legal).
Again their point is fairly pointless, useless even, and they could've said it without coming off like an asshole trying to nettle at a topic they don't understand. But I do think that was the point to their poorly constructed question.
I always preferred the Mark Twain quote, "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Because I've been beaten bloody with that experience on more than one occasion.
This excludes all the ipv4 ips that have a 0 in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th octets. Sorry but we're going to have to revoke your Network Engineering credentials.