Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

For that kind of loot, you can probably find a nice Savage 3.08?
Or possibly a Ruger??

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712554]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.

[url=http://www.cruffler.com/review-January-01.html]Firearm Review, January 2001[/url][/quote]

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.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712460]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.[/quote]

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=Slingin Sammy 33;712460]It won't make a difference to you, but for those interested in truth and facts, you should read this:
[URL="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA4M2NmNzY5N2FkZGEyMGI4ODkwNjYyNzgxYTAzMDQ"]‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online[/URL]=

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.
[/quote]

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=Slingin Sammy 33;712460]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.
[/quote]


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.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Hog1;712555]For that kind of loot, you can probably find a nice Savage 3.08?
Or possibly a Ruger??[/quote]

? I paid less than 200 for the Mauser? This is my Ruger, well close. Mine is a 44 Redhawk.

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

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!

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;712532]Found a pic of TTEs closet:

[IMG]http://dalesdesigns.net/2nd-amendment/image023.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

Holy crap. That...is...awesome. Looks like my late grandfather's closet.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712560]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.[/quote]Anywho, we've :bdh: this topic.

Funny about the sauce, shortly after we bought the place we had a couple of customers complain about the sauce being too hot. We found out one of the managers wasn't following the recipe and adding WAAAAYYY too much crushed red pepper (eventually dude was fired for other stupidity).

Hawaiian BBQ Chix - Pizza Sauce/BBQ blend, ham, pineapple, grilled chicken, correct? We have a bunch of folks order the traditional Hawaiian, just ham/pineapple, but your Hawaiian BBQ may make the special board next week. Maybe I'll call it the "Crazy Hawaiian BBQ" :)

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712565]Anywho, we've :bdh: this topic.

Funny about the sauce, shortly after we bought the place we had a couple of customers complain about the sauce being too hot. We found out one of the managers wasn't following the recipe and adding WAAAAYYY too much crushed red pepper (eventually dude was fired for other stupidity).

Hawaiian BBQ Chix - Pizza Sauce/BBQ blend, ham, pineapple, grilled chicken, correct? We have a bunch of folks order the traditional Hawaiian, just ham/pineapple, but your Hawaiian BBQ may make the special board next week. Maybe I'll call it the "Crazy Hawaiian BBQ" :)[/quote]

Ha! Speaking of a horse's ass!

[url=http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/10_Photo_of_Day/100715.photo.of.day.b.html]Steve Quayle News Alerts[/url]

Hope you get a good laugh on this one!

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712566]Ha! Speaking of a horse's ass!

[URL="http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/10_Photo_of_Day/100715.photo.of.day.b.html"]Steve Quayle News Alerts[/URL]

Hope you get a good laugh on this one![/quote]Great find. and I did LOL

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

well done saden.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712565]Anywho, we've :bdh: this topic.

Funny about the sauce, shortly after we bought the place we had a couple of customers complain about the sauce being too hot. We found out one of the managers wasn't following the recipe and adding WAAAAYYY too much crushed red pepper (eventually dude was fired for other stupidity).

Hawaiian BBQ Chix - Pizza Sauce/BBQ blend, ham, pineapple, grilled chicken, correct? We have a bunch of folks order the traditional Hawaiian, just ham/pineapple, but your Hawaiian BBQ may make the special board next week. Maybe I'll call it the "Crazy Hawaiian BBQ" :)[/quote]

LOL...you sure he wasn't fired because he was liberal? I like my pizza without ham or bacon...pizza Sauce/BBQ blend, 2x pineapple, 2x grilled chicken hits the spot. You can call it "SADEN #1: Crazy Hawaiian BBQ."

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

One last thing...the real problem with why NBPP can't be charged is because the law as is written is very weak and open to interpretation. The law say simply say "no loitering and no weapons permitted within a quarter of a mile of polling locations on election day." There is a compelling reason to do this and I believe it would stand up to constitutional challenges.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712587]LOL...you sure he wasn't fired because he was liberal? [/quote]LOL.
Most of the kids that work for my wife and I are 18-22, I'll put on Fox (or if some wacko, commie customer puts on MSNBC) the kids will look at it for a few seconds, get the blank stare, and move on. Whenever they're taking a break to eat it's on MTV, Comedy Central, or Spike. These kids have no clue what a liberal or conservative even are. These are the young cats that will be running the show when we're old......I'm definitely buying LTC insurance.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712593]One last thing...the real problem with why NBPP can't be charged is because the law as is written is very weak and open to interpretation. The law say simply say "no loitering and no weapons permitted within a quarter of a mile of polling locations on election day." There is a compelling reason to do this and I believe it would stand up to constitutional challenges.[/quote]The NBPP certainly can and should have been charged in a Civil case. The Voter Intimidation laws are not weak and the NBPP violations are clear and documented.

From one of the links, the writer worked in the Civil Right Division of DoJ and has first-hand knowledge of the process.

"First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. [B]With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts.[/B]

Criminal cases can take longer to develop, particularly since the government usually has to convene a federal grand jury to return an indictment. Also, criminal cases focus like a laser beam on individual defendants, whereas [B]civil cases can include an organizational defendant (like the NBPP).[/B]

The focus for the Civil Rights Division is always on the best way to get the remedy that is needed to stop and prevent the recurrence of the voter intimidation or other wrongful behavior as soon as possible. [B]In this particular case, when the decision was being made in January of 2009, the division knew there was going to be another election in May in Philadelphia. The fastest to way to make sure there would be no thugs in paramilitary uniforms and jackboots smacking batons into their fists at polling places in the upcoming election was to file a civil complaint and obtain a restraining order against the individual defendants and the New Black Panther Party.[/B] In fact, one of the defendants dismissed from the case was once again credentialed as a Democratic poll watcher in the May election.

Once the division obtained a judgment and an injunction in the civil case, they could have decided to further pursue a criminal prosecution against the individual New Black Panthers, but [B]the number one priority had to be getting a civil injunction as expeditiously as possible before the next election.[/B]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712597]The NBPP certainly can and should have been charged in a Civil case. The Voter Intimidation laws are not weak and the NBPP violations are clear and documented.

From one of the links, the writer worked in the Civil Right Division of DoJ and has first-hand knowledge of the process.

"First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. [B]With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts.[/B]

Criminal cases can take longer to develop, particularly since the government usually has to convene a federal grand jury to return an indictment. Also, criminal cases focus like a laser beam on individual defendants, whereas [B]civil cases can include an organizational defendant (like the NBPP).[/B]

The focus for the Civil Rights Division is always on the best way to get the remedy that is needed to stop and prevent the recurrence of the voter intimidation or other wrongful behavior as soon as possible. [B]In this particular case, when the decision was being made in January of 2009, the division knew there was going to be another election in May in Philadelphia. The fastest to way to make sure there would be no thugs in paramilitary uniforms and jackboots smacking batons into their fists at polling places in the upcoming election was to file a civil complaint and obtain a restraining order against the individual defendants and the New Black Panther Party.[/B] In fact, one of the defendants dismissed from the case was once again credentialed as a Democratic poll watcher in the May election.

Once the division obtained a judgment and an injunction in the civil case, they could have decided to further pursue a criminal prosecution against the individual New Black Panthers, but [B]the number one priority had to be getting a civil injunction as expeditiously as possible before the next election.[/B][/quote]

If the law wasn't so weak they wouldn't have to peruse a civil case because it's "easier." You make the civil case a slam dunk when it absolutely isn't.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAGdoBcnjWQ[/ame]

is this ok?

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=dmek25;712772][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAGdoBcnjWQ]YouTube - Want this in the US Senate?[/url]

is this ok?[/quote]If the carrying of firearms in the way they were on the video is legal in that particular state/municipality then yes, it's OK. This was either a local parade or campaign rally, not a polling place.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

i didnt mean was it legal. kids were all over the place. does it send the right message?

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=dmek25;712780]i didnt mean was it legal. kids were all over the place. does it send the right message?[/quote]In Miller's state, considering he's running on a conservative platform, yes. From a safety perspective, I'm by no means an expert on guns so I could be wrong, but the rifles appeared unloaded.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=dmek25;712780]i didnt mean was it legal. kids were all over the place. does it send the right message?[/quote]

And what message does it send to you, be a pussy and wait for the police to save you from criminals? Kids love guns! I did and so did all my friends.

Your rifle is but a tool. It is a hardened heart that kills.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712791]And what message does it send to you, be a pussy and wait for the police to save you from criminals?[B] Kids[/B] [B]love guns[/B]! I did and so did all my friends.

Your rifle is but [B]a tool.[/B] It is a hardened heart that kills.[/quote]
not the only tool, apparently:)

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=dmek25;712797]not the only tool, apparently:)[/quote]

What are you implying?

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712809]What are you implying?[/quote]

That he would perhaps enjoy doing something similar right outside of a polling place on election day.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712812]That he would perhaps enjoy doing something similar right outside of a polling place on election day.[/quote]

No one is talking to you dingus. I'm still at work. What's your excuse? Shouldn't you be burning the flag, smoking dope, and listening to rap music right about now?

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

another word for a spaz. NOTE: [B]a dingus is NOT a stupid person[/B], because a dingus is someone who can make you laugh by doing stupid THINGS, but they are not stupid people. a stupid person is an idiot. idiot and dingus are different.
well well well

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=dmek25;712828]another word for a spaz. NOTE: [B]a dingus is NOT a stupid person[/B], because a dingus is someone who can make you laugh by doing stupid THINGS, but they are not stupid people. a stupid person is an idiot. idiot and dingus are different.
well well well[/quote]

Stupid is as stupid does.