Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


The Supreme Court and guns

Debating with the enemy


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-14-2010, 10:31 AM   #31
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster View Post
He can't help not hearing about it...his news sources would rather have a panel discussion about Mel Gibson than the Obama DOJ's ignoring of the black version of the KKK threatening murder of white babies and letting charges of voter intimidation hide in the back of the filing cabinet.

The way the Administration is handling...actually NOT handling the Black Panthers is going to have some gigantic ramifications in the upcoming elections. I do predict the BPs to be allowed to be out and about on Election Day again though. By the President's own words, he's in agreement with the Black Panthers on issues such as reparations. Scary. Of course, some of us knew this before he was elected, but the ignorant masses either disregarded it as "hate speech" and attacks...or never bothered to find out.

In today's REAL news, the NAACP is condemning the Tea Party movement for racism...while they say nothing about the Black Panthers. I anticipate some statements and possible actions against the nonexistent racism in the Tea Parties. Breitbart offered a giant cash reward for video footage of some real racism at an event...many months ago...still nothing.

Playing the race card and throwing around baseless claims of racism does nothing else but minimize the scrutiny against REAL examples of racism. Boy who cried wolf-type effect.

It's shocking how little attention some people are paying...if you have not learned that you can't trust the mainstream media, you're incredibly naive.




As NAACP aims to stay in national debate, charge of tea party racism draws fire

Breitbart.tv » Democrat Congressman ‘Unaware’ of the New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case
The establishment's divide and conquer tactics are played out. They can no longer divide free educated people along racial lines anymore.
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 07-14-2010, 10:46 AM   #32
MVP
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,382
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
The establishment's divide and conquer tactics are played out. They can no longer divide free educated people along racial lines anymore.
yeah, but they knew that, and started dumbing down the general population long ago...
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 11:33 AM   #33
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,914
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
The justice department has a good track record of suing only when it is fairly certain it has a great chance of winning. It only takes one juror to say not guilty and I can assure you they would have gone free. Plus you have to think about saving taxpayers the cost...won't anybody think of the deficits and the children?
This.

Feds only prosecute when they have you dead to rights. It's why they have high conviction rates and get tougher penalties. They don't screw around. If you get in the sights of a Federal Prosecutor go ahead and get ready for a pound-you-in-the-ass prison. Just ask all the athletes that have gotten nailed over juicing and the shenanigans that go on around it. Ever heard of one beating the charges? Fed prosecutors are the real deal.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 12:00 PM   #34
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Maybe you guys need to check on the facts of the case before taking a position? I mean, how can a commission scream "bloody murder" about the action of NBPP and expect to have the DOJ prosecute without they themselves having a single voter claiming to have been intimidated in front of them and under oath?

Or maybe you should wait to have a disenfranchised voter file an actual complaint with the DOJ before pounding your chest? Or just maybe if they protested against the Bush administration's DOJ when they dropped the case against all but one NBPP defendants you would be justified in working yourself into a frenzy.


You guys make it too easy...I don't even have to try hard.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 06:53 PM   #35
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Back to the original topic. I found it interesting that the very same liberals who are "supposedly" for minority rights, don't allow those same people to defend themselves, even in their own home.

It's like when Ruth Ginsburg said abortion was about getting rid of the lower classes. Their true agenda is different than what they tell you.

You know what they say, "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 11:13 PM   #36
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,320
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Maybe you guys need to check on the facts of the case before taking a position? I mean, how can a commission scream "bloody murder" about the action of NBPP and expect to have the DOJ prosecute without they themselves having a single voter claiming to have been intimidated in front of them and under oath?

Or maybe you should wait to have a disenfranchised voter file an actual complaint with the DOJ before pounding your chest? Or just maybe if they protested against the Bush administration's DOJ when they dropped the case against all but one NBPP defendants you would be justified in working yourself into a frenzy.


You guys make it too easy...I don't even have to try hard.
Sorry for hijacking the thread again TTE.

Mentions of "sauce" and levels of "fertility" for arguments (while quite odd) are simply a diversion from facts and are your standard MO when there's nothing but spin and distortion to support your position.

It won't make a difference to you, but for those interested in truth and facts, you should read this:
‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online=

1) The Bush Admin. only dropped the criminal case, not the civil case (link explains why in detail).
2) Although it was under the Bush Admin. The career chief of the section responsible for filing of criminal charges was a prior ACLU attorney and liberal contributor/loyalist.
3) The same career chief is the one that decided not to pursue charges against the Minuteman in 2006 because there was no evidence, only allegations.

An eyewitness sworn affidavit is basically the same thing as testimony under oath. This case was investigated in detail by a team of DoJ attorneys and DoJ was awarded a default judgement. The court does not award judgements just because a defendant doesn't show. The case has to have merit.

Another link with great detail:
Friends in High Places | The Weekly Standard

And to those who just want to post "those are biased sources." Read the articles, see if you find any discrepancies of fact, and then let me know.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 10:27 AM   #37
Playmaker
 
GhettoDogAllStars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver
Age: 32
Posts: 2,761
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Found a pic of TTEs closet:

__________________
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.
GhettoDogAllStars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 10:36 AM   #38
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Actually I'm not a big fan of the M-16A1. They're designed to wound. My .308s on the other hand are designed to kill your ass with the first shot. Oooh Rah!
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 11:05 AM   #39
Playmaker
 
GhettoDogAllStars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver
Age: 32
Posts: 2,761
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
Actually I'm not a big fan of the M-16A1. They're designed to wound. My .308s on the other hand are designed to kill your ass with the first shot. Oooh Rah!
M14 FTW and I wouldn't keep all your mags loaded cause the springs will wear out
__________________
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.
GhettoDogAllStars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 11:29 AM   #40
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars View Post
M14 FTW and I wouldn't keep all your mags loaded cause the springs will wear out
I'd love to have a Springfield with a syn stock. Alas, I'm poor, so I just put a high powered scope on one of these. It's good for deer. Believe it or not I don't have an arsenal.

Firearm Review, January 2001
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 11:49 AM   #41
Quietly Dominating the East
 
Hog1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 8,989
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

For that kind of loot, you can probably find a nice Savage 3.08?
Or possibly a Ruger??
__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
Win! Always win!
By fair means or foul, by soft words and hard deeds...
by treachery, by cunning, by malpractice...
but always win--Edward Teach
Hog1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 12:07 PM   #42
Playmaker
 
GhettoDogAllStars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver
Age: 32
Posts: 2,761
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
I'd love to have a Springfield with a syn stock. Alas, I'm poor, so I just put a high powered scope on one of these. It's good for deer. Believe it or not I don't have an arsenal.

Firearm Review, January 2001
I have a Springfield M1A, but I wish I would have bought a Polytech M14, because from what I have read they are truest to the spec and have forged receivers instead of cast. Basically the real-deal military grade rifle available for civilians. If you are ever in the market for one, I would check them out, as long as you don't mind buying used and reading "Made in China" on the side.

In any case, I'm a big fan of battlefield weapons, and particularly older ones like the K98 you have. I'm not really into the latest designs and technology -- I like steel.
__________________
To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.
GhettoDogAllStars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 12:18 PM   #43
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Sorry for hijacking the thread again TTE.

Mentions of "sauce" and levels of "fertility" for arguments (while quite odd) are simply a diversion from facts and are your standard MO when there's nothing but spin and distortion to support your position.
Those aren't arguments, those are merely added for my own entertainment. My arguments were actually laid out via quotation from the link you provided.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
It won't make a difference to you, but for those interested in truth and facts, you should read this:
‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online=

1) The Bush Admin. only dropped the criminal case, not the civil case (link explains why in detail).
2) Although it was under the Bush Admin. The career chief of the section responsible for filing of criminal charges was a prior ACLU attorney and liberal contributor/loyalist.
3) The same career chief is the one that decided not to pursue charges against the Minuteman in 2006 because there was no evidence, only allegations.
So let's recap...We can't convict them criminally but we can peruse a civil suite. Obama's DOJ is only culpable for not pursuing a civil case against the two men and NBPP. Dropping the criminal charges is acceptable but dropping the civil charges is not. The attorney making the decision not to peruse a civil case has made similar decisions in the past and his "political leanings do not have an affect" on his decision. You have a video of two NBPP guys standing there with batons. You have a Republican poll observer claiming he heard "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker." You have no voters filing a complaint with the DOJ regarding their civil rights being violated. You have no actual poll workers filing a complaint.

I really don't know what you guys think could happen in civil suit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
An eyewitness sworn affidavit is basically the same thing as testimony under oath. This case was investigated in detail by a team of DoJ attorneys and DoJ was awarded a default judgment. The court does not award judgments just because a defendant doesn't show. The case has to have merit.

Affidavits are not the same thing as testimony under oath. They're binding and you could perjure yourself but that is where similarities end. Testimony under oath allows for questioning where as affidavits are simply signed statements made by an individual. It lacks an investigative component and the ability to put people on the spot. Now the commission refuses to have the lone individual come in and testify but they are more than willing to have DOJ personal (Perelli, King, Rosenbaum, etc) interviewed, deposed, and testify before the commission.

Do you know why our legal system has service of process component? It's to insure that people show up to court and if they don't request and easily receive Default Judgment. Unless you are suing Darth Vader and Galactic Empire or you've made filing procedural error civil suits in America don't have to have merits. Why tomorrow I can sue you and your pizzeria for stealing my family's secret sauce recipe and if you don't show up to court I would get a Default Judgment. Obviously my suit has no merit but I can see it being a fun thing to do.

I love your pizzas man but that sauce needs, how should I say, a little more kick. Hawaiian BBQ Chicken without the Bacon is my fav.

p.s. You're thinking with your emotions.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins

Last edited by saden1; 07-15-2010 at 02:24 PM. Reason: Grammatical errors
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 12:35 PM   #44
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hog1 View Post
For that kind of loot, you can probably find a nice Savage 3.08?
Or possibly a Ruger??
? I paid less than 200 for the Mauser? This is my Ruger, well close. Mine is a 44 Redhawk.

http://shooterclub-airsoft.com/images/product/625_1.jpg

I don't like fidgiting around with clips, chambering a round, and turning off the safety. If someone kicks open my door in the middle of the night, grab it, shoot, one shot one kill! This bad boy sits on my night stand while I dream about bouncing busty brunettes covered with baby oil. I sleep good too!
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 12:37 PM   #45
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 35
Posts: 12,623
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars View Post
Found a pic of TTEs closet:

Holy crap. That...is...awesome. Looks like my late grandfather's closet.
__________________
Insert witty signature here
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.34582 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25