The Supreme Court and guns
 

I ran over this interesting article regarding the decision to uphold the 2nd by the Supremes. I hadn't thought about gun rights from this point of view because I'm not black. It made perfect sense to me though.

[url=http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/09/civil-rights-and-armed-self-de]Civil Rights and Armed Self-Defense - Reason Magazine[/url]

I also found it highly dubious that the Commie Supremes voted to take away my guns. Come and get em Red Filth!

What Sayeth the Mob?

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

Who would have thought the Black Panthers were protecting your right to bear arms while Ronald Reagan [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act"]tried to take them away[/URL].

Bring back the Black Panther Party!

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

Interesting read, nice find TTE.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;711989]Who would have thought the Black Panthers were protecting your right to bear arms while Ronald Reagan [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act"]tried to take them away[/URL].

Bring back the Black Panther Party![/quote]

A....well kept Black Panther secret
[URL]http://www.ebonyhillbillies.com/Websiteepresskit.pdf[/URL]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Hog1;712004]A....well kept Black Panther secret
[URL]http://www.ebonyhillbillies.com/Websiteepresskit.pdf[/URL][/quote]

I'm not surprised, Banjo is from the motherland and we [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_folk_music_traditions"]pioneer folk music in America[/URL].


Ever play the cowbell?

[yt]UT4cGVNuSnA[/yt]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;711985]I ran over this interesting article regarding the decision to uphold the 2nd by the Supremes. I hadn't thought about gun rights from this point of view because I'm not black. It made perfect sense to me though.

[URL="http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/09/civil-rights-and-armed-self-de"]Civil Rights and Armed Self-Defense - Reason Magazine[/URL]

I also found it highly dubious that the Commie Supremes voted to take away my guns. Come and get em Red Filth!

What Sayeth the Mob?[/quote]
Interesting point of view , nice find .

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

Well, the constitution is all about interpretation right?

[img]http://cricketsoda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/right-to-bear-arms-shirt.gif[/img]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;711989]Who would have thought the Black Panthers were protecting your right to bear arms while Ronald Reagan [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act"]tried to take them away[/URL].

Bring back the Black Panther Party![/quote]

Haven't you been paying attention Sodded? The New Black Panter Party has said that a lot of cracker babies have to die before there is justice in the US of A. So if I was you I wouldn't be cozying up to them because in their own words, they "hate your white cracker guts". Oh I wouldn't want to start up a family around people who want to kill my children. Your sweetie ain't gonna tolerate that. So you might as well start whistling a different tune.

Don't believe me. Here you go.

[url=http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=175817]'Want freedom? Kill some crackers!'[/url]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712022]I'm not surprised, Banjo is from the motherland and we [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_folk_music_traditions"]pioneer folk music in America[/URL].


[B]Ever play the cowbell[/B]?

[yt]UT4cGVNuSnA[/yt][/quote]

I'll have to go to the Drunk thread and check.......

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

I need MORE COWBELL. I gotta have MORE COWBELL.

[url=http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/snl-more-cowbell.html]SNL More Cowbell - Videos - Funny Hub[/url]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712098]Haven't you been paying attention Sodded? The New Black Panter Party has said that a lot of cracker babies have to die before there is justice in the US of A. So if I was you I wouldn't be cozying up to them because in their own words, they "hate your white cracker guts". Oh I wouldn't want to start up a family around people who want to kill my children. Your sweetie ain't gonna tolerate that. So you might as well start whistling a different tune.

Don't believe me. Here you go.

[URL="http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=175817"]'Want freedom? Kill some crackers!'[/URL][/quote]saden I'm sure will respond, however the Black Panther Party has stated the New Black Panther Party is illegitimate.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party]Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party]New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712107]saden I'm sure will respond, however the Black Panther Party has stated the New Black Panther Party is illegitimate.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party]Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party]New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url][/quote]

I'm sure Reverend Wright would agree.

[url=http://www.breitbart.tv/new-black-panther-president-praises-bin-laden/]Breitbart.tv » New Black Panther President Praises Bin Laden[/url]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

A poor imitation is not the real thing. Brother Huey P. Newton said it best:

[QUOTE]The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.[/QUOTE]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712120]A poor imitation is not the real thing. Brother Huey P. Newton said it best:[/quote]

Poor schmuck.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712125]Poor schmuck.[/quote]

Ain't nothing poor about me, I'm loaded fool...come get some.

[yt]3CwHzclyYnI[/yt]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712120]A poor imitation is not the real thing. Brother Huey P. Newton said it best:[/quote]

While its not the real thing the hate they spew is real and the Obama administration found nothing wrong with them blocking voting booths while welding a club.

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html]John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com[/url]

I guess they only care about racist when they are white.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=firstdown;712131]While its not the real thing the hate they spew is real and the Obama administration found nothing wrong with them blocking voting booths while welding a club.

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574361071968458430.html]John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com[/url]

I guess they only care about racist when they are white.[/quote]

LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712137]LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.[/quote]

Advocating racially motivated murder of children is right in your mind? I always knew you were effed up! In VA that's called fighting words. It is in our law. It's the same as going into a movie theatre and yelling fire. That isn't free speech, it's incitment. That's why those agent provacateurs were there, to stir up violence.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712146]Advocating racially motivated murder of children is right in your mind? I always knew you were effed up! In VA that's called fighting words. It is in our law. It's the same as going into a movie theatre and yelling fire. That isn't free speech, it's incitment. That's why those agent provacateurs were there, to stir up violence.[/quote]

You're ranting and you don't make sense. Relax and tells what you're talking about in a cool and calm manner.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712137]LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.[/quote]

Just two guys dressed in military outfits welding night sticks with tons of video of this is really a tough case. I forgot we are talking Obama and every thing is tough for them.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712149]You're ranting and you don't make sense. Relax and tells what you're talking about in a cool and calm manner.[/quote]

It is your responsibility to be informed. Watch the video on the link I provided. Where do you go to get information anyway, one of the gov controlled alphabet stations? So you didn't hear about the "New" Black Panters in front of the voting station screaming about, "we're gonna have to kill cracker babies"? Let me ask you something. If two Neo-Nazis armed with baseball bats, went down to a Jewish voting center, and started saying, "We can't wait until we can start killing Jews again, We got to kill us some Jews!" Would you consider that voter intimidation?

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

Section 11(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act:

[QUOTE]No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).[/QUOTE]

The only time this section was used to prosecute was to prosecute Jesse Helms campaign staffers:

[QUOTE]In a combative 1990 reelection campaign, Helms nearly lost to African American Harvey Gantt. The former Democratic mayor of Charlotte was ahead of Helms until the last weeks of the campaign, when Helms's forces mailed 125,000 postcards to voters warning them that they could be prosecuted for Fraud if they voted improperly. At least 44,000 cards were sent to black voters, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, which sent observers to the state to ensure fair elections. Helms edged out Gantt by just over 100,000 votes. In 1992, the Justice Department ruled that the Helms campaign had violated federal Civil Rights and voting laws by intimidating, threatening, and discouraging African Americans from voting. Helms's office denied that he was involved in the mailings.[/QUOTE]

Now, the situation with the Black Panthers is that they are standing there with batons...are they intimidating? Sure. Can their lawyer make the case that they were there to protect black voters and therefor had no intent to intimidate white voters? You bet your ass any half-decent lawyer can. I've seen the video and I didn't see any of them having a conversation voters going and out. Did I miss something?

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?

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712137]LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.[/quote]DoJ had a conviction.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/ex-official-accuses-justice-department-racial-bias-black-panther-case/"]FOXNews.com - Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case[/URL]

From the article: "The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. [B]The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court.[/B] But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012."

[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575350983196404478.html"]A Very Obama Scandal - WSJ.com[/URL]

Bartle Bull (lifelong Democrat and former civil rights lawyer) saw this first-hand and described the incident as: "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."

The Obama Admin. was absolutely wrong to drop this case.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712170]DoJ had a conviction.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/ex-official-accuses-justice-department-racial-bias-black-panther-case/"]FOXNews.com - Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case[/URL]

From the article: "The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. [B]The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court.[/B] But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012."

[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575350983196404478.html"]A Very Obama Scandal - WSJ.com[/URL]

Bartle Bull (lifelong Democrat and former civil rights lawyer) saw this first-hand and described the incident as: "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."

The Obama Admin. was absolutely wrong to drop this case.[/quote]

Default Judgment sounds nice but means nothing and it certainly isn't a "conviction"...it can be easily vacated in criminal matters. I know all about Adams and is cohorts. [URL="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=the_new_black_panther_party_ca#120368"]Do you?[/URL]

Read the [URL="http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0901/final.pdf"]Schlozman Report released by the DOJ in 2008[/URL].

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712171]Default Judgment sounds nice but means nothing and it certainly isn't a "conviction"...it can be easily vacated in criminal matters. I know all about Adams and is cohorts. [URL="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=the_new_black_panther_party_ca#120368"]Do you?[/URL]

Read the [URL="http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0901/final.pdf"]Schlozman Report released by the DOJ in 2008[/URL].[/quote]The political hiring issue and Adams' politcal leanings do not have an affect on the merits of the case and the fact that there was a conviction. What the NBBP members were doing was blantantly wrong, the NBBP member with the night-stick has been caught on video advocating violence against whites, and what's not on the video are the threats he made against polling workers.

Again from Bartle Bull's affidavit; "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters." He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

[COLOR=#0e774a][URL="http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf"]www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf[/URL][/COLOR]

I would suggest you read page 5 of the linked document:
[LEFT][FONT=Courier New]"A black poll worker who happened to be working for the Republican Party was called a race traitor and promised that there would be hell to pay if he emerged from the polling place, according to eyewitness statements. He was so alarmed by the Panthers' presence that he would not leave the polling[/FONT][/LEFT]
[FONT=Courier New]place until they left."[/FONT]

Open and shut.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712177]The political hiring issue and Adams' politcal leanings do not have an affect on the merits of the case and the fact that there was a conviction. What the NBBP members were doing was blantantly wrong, the NBBP member with the night-stick has been caught on video advocating violence against whites, and what's not on the video are the threats he made against polling workers.

Again from Bartle Bull's affidavit; "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters." He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

[COLOR=#0e774a][URL="http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf"]www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf[/URL][/COLOR]

I would suggest you read page 5 of the linked document:
[LEFT][FONT=Courier New]"A black poll worker who happened to be working for the Republican Party was called a race traitor and promised that there would be hell to pay if he emerged from the polling place, according to eyewitness statements. He was so alarmed by the Panthers' presence that he would not leave the polling[/FONT][/LEFT]
[FONT=Courier New]place until they left."[/FONT]

Open and shut.[/quote]

Nice

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

SS33, per your link:

[quote]COMMISSIONER YAKI: Point of information on the voting rights.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I just have a question about a statement made in the Chairman's opening remarks. You talked about the --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, we are under tight time constraints.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I know. I understand. But I think this is important because --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: It may be important
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- it goes to the rules of the game here, which is you talked about the so-called terrified poll worker at the facility --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Mr. Yaki? Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- [B]when there has been direct evidence[/B] --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, we will not be doing this now. Vice Chair Thernstrom, please continue.
COMMISSIONER YAKI:[B] I am asking for clarification[/B], Mr. Chair. You made a statement.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Vice Chair Thernstrom?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: [B]It was not based on any direct evidence[/B] --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: 1 Please proceed.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- [B]by anyone here. It is hearsay testimony[/B]. The only thing --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, now is not the time to try to run out the clock.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I am not trying to run out the clock.[B] I am simply saying that there has been no direct testimony[/B] --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki? Commissioner Yaki, you are wasting valuable time. And you know it.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: And I think that your [B]ten-minute[/B] statement when we only get [B]one minute[/B] is a way to put facts into evidence which do not exist.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I just want to make that point.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: That's all I have to say.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, if this happens again, it will come out of your time.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: Oh, you can do whatever you want, Mr. Chair.[/quote]


Testimoney of Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Mr. Thomas Perez:


[quote] As noted in the written responses to the Commission's inquiry, we have endeavored to be responsive to the Commission's request while at the same time protecting against disclosures which would undermine well-established and longstanding confidentiality interests that are integral to the discharge of our law enforcement responsibilities, particularly those relating to litigation decisions.

At the outset, let me emphasize with respect to Section 11(b) decisions that these are hard cases. Very few such cases have been brought. In fact, we can find records of only three cases filed by the government under Section 11(b) since its inception.

[B]The standards for proof are high[/B]. And, as in every case, the question to be addressed is whether the [B]evidence is sufficient to sustain the burden of proof[/B]. And on that question, reasonable minds can differ and can look at the same set of facts but draw different conclusions regarding whether the burden of proof has been met. Let me give you a few examples to illustrate that point.

In the most recent case under 11(b) to go to trial, United States versus Brown, the court found that the publication in the newspaper by a county political party chairman of a list of voters to be challenged if they attempted to vote in the party primary [B]did not amount to intimidation, threat, or coercion under 11(b)[/B].

In another case, in Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a [B]gun[/B], allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish.

In that instance, [B]the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation[/B], notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties.

In 2005, the Division 1 received allegations that armed Mississippi State investigators intimidated elderly minority voters during an investigation of possible voter fraud in municipal elections by visiting them in their home, [B]asking them who they voted for[/B], in spite of state law protections that explicitly forbid such inquiries.

[B]Here again, the Division front office leadership declined to bring a voter intimidation case in this matter.[/B] This is the matter referenced in a recent GAO report that examined a number of cases brought by certain sections of the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration.[/quote]

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Bang![/COLOR][/B]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712200][B][COLOR=darkred]Bang![/COLOR][/B][/quote]Spin away, that's no surprise. Of the items you highlighted none have video evidence or impartial testimony attached to them. I'll take video evidience, a sworn affidavit from a life long Democrat, and eyewitness statements as impartial facts. However you want to spin this, what happened was flat out wrong and should've been prosecuted.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712204]Spin away, that's no surprise. Of the items you highlighted none have video evidence or impartial testimony attached to them. I'll take video evidience, a sworn affidavit from a life long Democrat, and eyewitness statements as impartial facts. However you want to spin this, what happened was flat out wrong and should've been prosecuted.[/quote]


Check yourself, you done got robbed of the glory you were hoping for. Your [COLOR="DarkRed"]sauce[/COLOR] is weak...I know it, I know you know it...everyone knows it. Your narrative is weak and infertile man. You've lost this battle but the war isn't over...keep hope alive, Obama is bound to f'up some more.

LOL....let me stop before I laugh myself to death.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712158]It is your responsibility to be informed. Watch the video on the link I provided. Where do you go to get information anyway, one of the gov controlled alphabet stations? So you didn't hear about the "New" Black Panters in front of the voting station screaming about, "we're gonna have to kill cracker babies"? Let me ask you something. If two Neo-Nazis armed with baseball bats, went down to a Jewish voting center, and started saying, "We can't wait until we can start killing Jews again, We got to kill us some Jews!" Would you consider that voter intimidation?[/quote]

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.




[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204471_pf.html"]As NAACP aims to stay in national debate, charge of tea party racism draws fire[/URL]

[url=http://www.breitbart.tv/democrat-congressman-unaware-of-the-new-black-panther-voter-intimidation-case/]Breitbart.tv » Democrat Congressman ‘Unaware’ of the New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case[/url]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Buster;712301]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.




[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204471_pf.html"]As NAACP aims to stay in national debate, charge of tea party racism draws fire[/URL]

[url=http://www.breitbart.tv/democrat-congressman-unaware-of-the-new-black-panther-voter-intimidation-case/]Breitbart.tv » Democrat Congressman ‘Unaware’ of the New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case[/url][/quote]

The establishment's divide and conquer tactics are played out. They can no longer divide free educated people along racial lines anymore.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712310]The establishment's divide and conquer tactics are played out. They can no longer divide free educated people along racial lines anymore.[/quote]

yeah, but they knew that, and started dumbing down the general population long ago... :(

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712168]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?[/quote]

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.

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.

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".

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712341]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.[/quote]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:
[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.

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:
[URL="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/friends-high-places"]Friends in High Places | The Weekly Standard[/URL]

And to those who just want to post "those are biased sources." Read the articles, see if you find any discrepancies of [B]fact[/B], and then let me know.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

Found a pic of TTEs closet:

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

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!

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712537]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![/quote]

M14 FTW and I wouldn't keep all your mags loaded cause the springs will wear out ;)

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;712544]M14 FTW and I wouldn't keep all your mags loaded cause the springs will wear out ;)[/quote]

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]