When Trump Defies the Courts

[Gun Nut]

But you can continue the 2nd Amendment fan fic where boys with guns can fend off predator drones.

Yeah, quick quiz on that.
What worked best for Randy Weaver on Ruby Ridge:
[_] Rifle
[_] Pistol
[_] Body Armor
[_] Lawyer

...and that was just Marshals.

How is this representative of the topic? That was a bunch of US Marshals attacking citizens on their property without a search warrant... and several of them were killed for their trouble. Weaver was acquitted of all wrongdoing associated with the shootings, except the first shot taken while the MArshals were attempting to identify themselves.. and that's it... the death of the FBI agents were deemed LEGAL SELF DEFENSE.

The key is who is on defense and who is on offense... put Trump in the house and 200 - 300 patriots in the woods gunning for him, and he is dead meat... your example is backwards.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But you can continue the 2nd Amendment fan fic where boys with guns can fend off predator drones.

Yeah, quick quiz on that.
What worked best for Randy Weaver on Ruby Ridge:
[_] Rifle
[_] Pistol
[_] Body Armor
[_] Lawyer

...and that was just Marshals.

How is this representative of the topic? That was a bunch of US Marshals attacking citizens on their property without a search warrant... and several of them were killed for their trouble. Weaver was acquitted of all wrongdoing associated with the shootings, except the first shot taken while the MArshals were attempting to identify themselves.. and that's it... the death of the FBI agents were deemed LEGAL SELF DEFENSE.

The key is who is on defense and who is on offense... put Trump in the house and 200 - 300 patriots in the woods gunning for him, and he is dead meat... your example is backwards.

You can lead a poster to water, but you can't make him think.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How is this representative of the topic? That was a bunch of US Marshals attacking citizens on their property without a search warrant... and several of them were killed for their trouble. Weaver was acquitted of all wrongdoing associated with the shootings, except the first shot taken while the MArshals were attempting to identify themselves.. and that's it... the death of the FBI agents were deemed LEGAL SELF DEFENSE.

The key is who is on defense and who is on offense... put Trump in the house and 200 - 300 patriots in the woods gunning for him, and he is dead meat... your example is backwards.

You can lead a poster to water, but you can't make him think.

Sadly, apparently not.

I was thinking more about them shooting his wife. Nothing in his arsenal enabled him to stop that.

But, hey, you wanna concentrate on his being vindicated in THE TRIAL, then that raises a whole new question. About THE COURTROOM TRIAL.
What worked best for Randy Weaver on Ruby Ridge:
[_] Rifle
[_] Pistol
[_] Body Armor
[_] Lawyer

 

[Gun Nut]

How is this representative of the topic? That was a bunch of US Marshals attacking citizens on their property without a search warrant... and several of them were killed for their trouble. Weaver was acquitted of all wrongdoing associated with the shootings, except the first shot taken while the MArshals were attempting to identify themselves.. and that's it... the death of the FBI agents were deemed LEGAL SELF DEFENSE.

The key is who is on defense and who is on offense... put Trump in the house and 200 - 300 patriots in the woods gunning for him, and he is dead meat... your example is backwards.

You can lead a poster to water, but you can't make him think.

Sadly, apparently not.

I was thinking more about them shooting his wife. Nothing in his arsenal enabled him to stop that.

But, hey, you wanna concentrate on his being vindicated in THE TRIAL, then that raises a whole new question. About THE COURTROOM TRIAL.
What worked best for Randy Weaver on Ruby Ridge:
[_] Rifle
[_] Pistol
[_] Body Armor
[_] Lawyer

The Lawyer was most helpful in the courtroom. It was he that got Randy acquitted of all charges against him, except one. That includes the charge of shooting the FBI and Marshal... in other words, this is an example of a citizen shooting a person that was serving the government, and being found innocent of wrongdoing.
This is my point... how is it not? Citizens have rights and this case proves that those rights can be executed fully.
It is also entirely backwards... you have the government organizing a (failed) attack on a citizen in your example, but the topic at hand are a group of citizens organizing to attack illegally positioned entities attempting to usurp our government.
If you wish to continue this line of discussion you can make your point clearer, if you want.

 

[jab]

It depends what he does: when he was going blatantly to self deal with the G7 gathering, the Repug senators took a hard look at the trending polls and told him to back down or be impeached and removed from office. He backed down.

 

[Gun Nut]

impeachment, lost election, or lead poisoning... don't really care which, but I guess if I had to choose then it would be lost election, if by a landslide.

 

[Elixir]

Back to the OP topic -
Has anyone here noticed that Trump is calling the impeachment process illegitimate, illegal, unconstitutional and even treasonous? And that his idiot followers believe him, and the spineless Republican Senators are feigning agreement with him?
What on god's green earth could possibly make anyone here think he'd be any different about losing a court case or an election?
Any reason to believe his idiot followers and Congressional enablers won't follow him down that rabbit hole as well?

You can argue all you want about the inefficacy of some ignorant bubba with an AR15, but that doesn't account for a single well trained operator with a McMillan Tac-50.

 

[Gun Nut]

Back to the OP topic -
Has anyone here noticed that Trump is calling the impeachment process illegitimate, illegal, unconstitutional and even treasonous? And that his idiot followers believe him, and the spineless Republican Senators are feigning agreement with him?
What on god's green earth could possibly make anyone here think he'd be any different about losing a court case or an election?
Any reason to believe his idiot followers and Congressional enablers won't follow him down that rabbit hole as well?

You can argue all you want about the inefficacy of some ignorant bubba with an AR15, but that doesn't account for a single well trained operator with a McMillan Tac-50.

Do you think that the winner of the election, and the majority of the country that must have supported them would do nothing?.. nothing at all???
I also think it's kind of cute how people think "bubba with an AR15" is the end-all to what the current state of our "well armed militia" is. I don't need a .50 cal sniper rifle to drop an elk at 300 yards.. heck, I could do it with one of my "hand rolled" slugs out of my cheapo $200 mossberg pump shotgun (with my rifled barrel and a bit of luck). And I am not all that good a shot at long range anymore... plenty of other patriots are, though.

 

[Elixir]

Thinking 2-3km, not 200 yards. Not a lot of qualified people, but there are some. And I think it likely that one or more could come out of the woodwork if Trump defies the courts.

 

[Half-Life]

Hitler demands the Jews show up in court! The Jews ignore it. Leftists scream "Jews hate Germany!"

 

[Elixir]

Do you think that the winner of the election, and the majority of the country that must have supported them would do nothing?.. nothing at all???

A couple of years ago I turned down an invitation to a 4-day shooting camp that included distance shots of over a mile... Of course those shots would include at least three people to measure and calculate factors like altitude and the earth's rotation, in addition to the usual complications. But considering that I was invited (even though I didn't go and have no use for those skills - I have a pellet gun for non-lethal discouragement of coyotes, and don't really love guns), I have to suspect that there are people out there with that kind of capability who really have no business at all acquiring such skills. But short of that, there's probably nothing .... nothing at all .... that anyone could do if Trump decided to defy the courts.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hitler demands the Jews show up in court! The Jews ignore it. Leftists scream "Jews hate Germany!"

Can i suggest adult fanfic dot org for all your fanfic needs?

http://www.adult-fanfiction.org/html-index.php

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hitler demands the Jews show up in court! The Jews ignore it. Leftists scream "Jews hate Germany!"

So do you have a hyperbole generator, or are you just gifted?

 

[Half-Life]

Hitler demands the Jews show up in court! The Jews ignore it. Leftists scream "Jews hate Germany!"

So do you have a hyperbole generator, or are you just gifted?

Point is that Trump is the victim here. He's right to ignore it.

 

[Elixir]

MODS:
And chance of moving half-life's half-witted derail ... elsewhere?
He obviously has nothing to contribute to the subject of the OP.

This thread is about what happens when Trump, having defied Congress and having attacked every law enforcement and intel agency, de decides to defy the courts as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you think that the winner of the election, and the majority of the country that must have supported them would do nothing?.. nothing at all???

A couple of years ago I turned down an invitation to a 4-day shooting camp that included distance shots of over a mile... Of course those shots would include at least three people to measure and calculate factors like altitude and the earth's rotation, in addition to the usual complications. But considering that I was invited (even though I didn't go and have no use for those skills - I have a pellet gun for non-lethal discouragement of coyotes, and don't really love guns), I have to suspect that there are people out there with that kind of capability who really have no business at all acquiring such skills. But short of that, there's probably nothing .... nothing at all .... that anyone could do if Trump decided to defy the courts.

Think His Flatulence would appear in a position where someone had the line of sight to take such a shot?

 

[Elixir]

Think His Flatulence would appear in a position where someone had the line of sight to take such a shot?

I really don't know about all that tactical shit, but it seems to me like a 6km diameter circle would be hard to constantly keep "clean".

 

[Half-Life]

MODS:
And chance of moving half-life's half-witted derail ... elsewhere?
He obviously has nothing to contribute to the subject of the OP.

This thread is about what happens when Trump, having defied Congress and having attacked every law enforcement and intel agency, de decides to defy the courts as well.

Sorry.

But, in my opinion nothing will happen. You can't indict a sitting President. Do you know a way around this? In a way, I almost want him to suspend elections because the progressives are too damn dangerous to this country.

Jefferson said when laws are unjust or lead to injustice, we are obligated to defy them.

 

[Patooka]

Hitler demands the Jews show up in court! The Jews ignore it. Leftists scream "Jews hate Germany!"

So do you have a hyperbole generator, or are you just gifted?

Point is that Trump is the victim here. He's right to ignore it.

You spelled criminal wrong.

You can't indict a sitting President.

Why? Where is your proof?

In a way, I almost want him to suspend elections because the progressives are too damn dangerous to this country.

Jefferson said when laws are unjust or lead to injustice, we are obligated to defy them.

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that if Obama or Clinton tried a tenth of the reprehensible shit Trump has pulled in less than 36 months you would be the first to cry about it?

 

[Keith&Co.]

. You can't indict a sitting President. Do you know a way around this?

Can't? That's a DOJ memo, it says they won't.
Not that they cannot. Not like it's in the Constitution, or anything.

In a way, I almost want him to suspend elections because the progressives are too damn dangerous to this country.

speaking as someone sworn to defend the constitution you just shat upon, I disagree strenuously with you.