Grouse89
-
Posts
269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Grouse89
-
-
theres a reason why our bills backers refers to him as tom "FG" brady*. Because brady is incapable of leading his team on much more than a 35 yard FG drive when the game is on the line in crunch time. Even in the super bowls, the drives he "led" werent that long. If john kasay hadnt kicked the ball OB, the panthers-cheaters* super bowl would have gone to OT.
And if Norwood makes the FG THE BILLS WIN THE SUPERBOWL WOOT!!!
-
sry i didn't put the magical sarcasm smily in my post
-
Stroud should call Rodney Harrison and hook him up with some HGH. Prior to that, Rodney WAS on the downside, but suddenly/miraculously came back to begin delivering his patented cheap shots anew.
YES great idea lets become the pats* and cheat our way to victories.
-
What makes you think he knew the cops were called? He may have left because he didn't want to stay and let the argument escalate further. I know I have walked away from arguments in order to avoid doing something stupid.
same here
-
Actually he does...The organization and by extension us fans have invested in him...The guy has a history, dude...
I disagree not all of us have, maybe that makes me a bad fan idk. I haven't gone to a bills game in like 10 years and I've never bought a jersey. so i've invested sh-- in him personally, and I think his private life and what he does should stay as private as possible. If there were charges filed and he was arrested or something then yea sure an explination would be great but since there wasn't and he wasn't then no. JMO.
I just have other things i'd rather spend my money on, but I still watch every game on TV and root for them to do well.
-
TE's are overrated
-
Know, I detest it.
I see
-
Yeah, walking away from a confrontation (or potential confrontation) doesn't make sense, right?
Only if you are a puzzie do you walk away....just like people who only pull guns out but then don't use them (sarcasm included)
-
Is that Disneyland in the background?
Donald Duck says hi
-
Thanks for proving you don't understand the definition of spam.
Quite amusing.
Hey stand-up is my thing.
-
You hate Italians to?
Do you hate Blueberry gum?
-
Right.... great comeback. (Hint: posting a lot of messages in a row = spam)
NO. posting alot of worthless messages forcing information onto someone who doesn't want to otherwise recieve it is spam. From my point of view my messages were not worthless and repling tto the topic of the time. If you conside my messages spam i apologize I do not try to spam I was trying to give my views on the topic and came in late and responded to sections of the 14 pages already posted. BUT IMO your last few posts have been worthless and trying to force info on me that is worthlless and not otherwise wanted so that is spam by the internet definition = pot calling kettle black....comeback or not.
-
I think you'll be surprised at what you find.
what that the pot is calling the kettle black?
-
Try looking it up.
no need.
-
Yea i'd take him before the injuries, he's a shell of himself, why do you think the browns would just cut him if he was he same "big name player" . they wouldn't he's done...a backup which we prolly could use but rather let a younger player get the sport and try to groom him.
-
WHY DON'T U GO CAN YOURSELF IN A SMALL METAL TIN SPAMMY!
-
Do you know what spam means?
Sketch's post FTW
Yea I do... do you, doesn't appear so.
-
New guy tries to act like he's not spammyI'M not new, i lost my old account info.
And even though the topic is completely off track now, since what i say is RELATED to the topic it's not spamming sry learn something new everyday don't we.
Actually you posting on this thread about how you want a mod to change my avatar is spam.
-
you're lost.
Yea well that happens alot.
-
Lori, wheres that avatar?!
dude give it up
-
I'm sorry, I did not realize that you were Mr. Know It All. With you barking about assumptions, gun laws etc; you just pulled a few blanket statements out of thin air really? you lose.
-
I agree in full. Cowards pull guns and don't use them. It's a bluff, and of all the people to pull a gun on, your own dad. Here is a 6'6" professional athlete in his 20's needing to pull a gun on his 40 something dad.
Nothing amazes me anymore when it comes to reactions. You earn respect. The reason you wait for the full story to come out on a guy like Marvin Harrison is because he has been pretty classy the past decade and beyond, so I will extend him the benefit of the doubt. This Hardy is a kid who 3 weeks ago was being talked of as a guy who wacked his babymama and infant kid around, yet everything was behind him. Now he pulls a gun on his father. Sweet.
Mr Hardy....welcome to Buffalo, where there are plenty of savy football fans who are scuzball enough to draw your hothead into an altercation in order to get a piece of that signing bonus you have coming.
Marv must be rolling over in his driveway.
So if he did pull it, which we have no idea he actually did, he should have !@#$ing used it. HEAR THAT JAMES use the moth-a !@#$ing thikng next time, if you don't you lose cred.
-
I'm not sure where you went to law school, but you clearly didn't learn anything about the second amendment. The fact is that the wording of the amendment is ambiguous, not clearly defining under what circumstances a person may keep and bear arms. The question is not whether persons can own firearms. The individual state constitutions in 44 states have a much more clearly articulated individual right to keep and bear arms. As for the decision in U.S. v. Miller, the court neither stated affirmatively that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, or that the right was purely collective and only allowing for the right to be exercised only in the context of the militia. One should not that ten of the twelve circuit courts have determined that the right is exercised either collectively or under a "sophisticated collective rights model." Furthermore, even if the Second Amendment does in fact convey an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is nothing stopping the states or the federal government from placing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right. For example, it is likely that the Felon in Possession laws will be upheld, along with the CCW certification requirements.
A collective right to keep and bear arms would not mean that no one could own a firearm. What it means is that under the federal constitution, and thus only in territories or states that do not provide for a clearly articulated right in their own constitutions that provide for a more significant individual right, the Government could restrict more severely the types of weapons that the people could own and when they could have access to them. The fact is, anyone following the case currently in the Supreme Court, that being Heller v. United States, formerly Parker v. United States in the D.C. Circuit, knows the likely outcome. The court is likely to find an individual right, but is not likely to incorporate that right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. They are likely to uphold the reasonable restrictions that are currently in place and to find that a complete ban on handguns, like the one that is currently in place in the District of Columbia, simply goes too far.
The arguments that the history of the amendment clearly demonstrate that the right is individual are unfamiliar with the history of the amendment. The fact is the Senate hearings and debate of the amendment were conducted in a closed session and there is no record in existence as to the positions or findings of the Senate. The House reports are ambiguous as to the positions of all of the legislators. Further, you cited Aymette v. State from Tennessee for the proposition that there is an individual right. However, the historical positions of the states are not clear. Take a look at State v. Buzzard from the same time articulating exactly the opposite position. For a good synopsis of the positions presented by both sides I recommend Akhil Reed Amar's book "America's Constitution: A Biography" which has a good explanation of the logical positions concerning the position's of both sides.
As to U.S. v. Miller, the case does not cite a lot of cases that construe an individual right. The case is purposefully ambiguous, and fails to clearly support either position. The precedents that the court cites are to cases from the late 1800s that avoid the question of whether or not to find and individual right in the Constitution AND further, determine that any right construed in the Second Amendment that potentially belongs to the individual is not going to be incorporated to the states. There is a lot of ambiguity in the case law here. The fact is, if Miller were as clear as many on this board believed that it was, there would be no basis for the super majority of the Federal Circuit Court's to have found a collective right. For those who are curious some of the cases from those circuits are as follows:
U.S. v. Haney (10th Circuit)
Sklar v. Burns (7th Circuit)
There are also prominent cases from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits holding that the Amendment grants some form of a collective right. Many of these cases cite U.S. v. Miller for the proposition that the Amendment construes a collective right. Sorry, but I trust the opinions of 27 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' Judges over someone whom I don't even know has a law degree. People enjoy the right to bear arms, because their State constitutions allow them the right to do so. Many people don't realize that the states have the right to grant more protections to their citizens than are afforded by the United States Constitution. The right to own a gun in your individual capacity may be one of those additional protections, or it may not. The Supreme Court has yet to definitively take a position on the issue.
I have no idea what you are talking about dude I didn't cite sh--, you have the wrong person.
-
I think counseling is the best way to go for now. If his father is a real threat then add in the restraining order.
I don't think it will be changed. The comment was to point out the idiocy of your comment saying they should deny themselves security because they don't agree with unlimited gun ownership. In fact it leads to the exact opposite of your argument. That's all I was saying.
Well maybe you'll eventually understand the Supreme Court decision on that.
I never saiud that lmao
James Hardy
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Is that a true story? lol. Cuz i'd have to admit If I was "brother" I'd be pissed.