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]

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.