4WHLDRFTN
.308 Win
Can you show me in the ruling where it says this is acceptable? I must have missed it when I read the decision.
He heard it on cnn
Can you show me in the ruling where it says this is acceptable? I must have missed it when I read the decision.
Was gonna say .220 swift 22.250 right there with it. Great shooting. What glass at 500?22.250
That's my limit, I don't think I could do further with any rifle lol
Haven't tried the 6.5 yet
Oh take away the damn blur already.
Was gonna say .220 swift 22.250 right there with it. Great shooting. What glass at 500?
Maybe a warning. If you don’t go now. Next time we won’t miss. Was a Very easy shotPeople have noted that President Reagan changed after his assassination attempt. He lost some of his fire, became a bit more subdued.
This is all still very fresh, I hope that doesn't happen with President Trump.
Don't waste your time. The law of diminishing returns.Can you show me in the ruling where it says this is acceptable? I must have missed it when I read the decision.
Regan was shot in his lung and lost nearly 40% of his blood before reaching hospital i wouldn't be surprised if Trump is posting on Truth Social tonight.People have noted that President Reagan changed after his assassination attempt. He lost some of his fire, became a bit more subdued.
This is all still very fresh, I hope that doesn't happen with President Trump.
There is a ladder behind the spruce trees.Oh take away the damn blur already.
Can you show me in the ruling where it says this is acceptable? I must have missed it when I read the decision.
"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority."Can you show me in the ruling where it says this is acceptable? I must have missed it when I read the decision.
Regan was shot in his lung and lost nearly 40% of his blood before reaching hospital i wouldn't be surprised if Trump is posting on Truth Social tonight.
Do I smell a demonrat?"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority."
From Sotomayor's dissent:
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation's history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law
The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President's exercise of "core constitutional powers." Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority's attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all "official act.Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority's rule, a President's use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.
So, murdering people is part of the Constitution? Weird, I must have missed that as well when studying my Constitution."Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority."
From Sotomayor's dissent:
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation's history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law
The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President's exercise of "core constitutional powers." Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority's attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all "official act.Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority's rule, a President's use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.
Anyone identify that rifle?
I'm sure most everyone on this forum could make that shot but who knows, maybe this was one of those antifa soy-boys who saved all his money for his first rifle and found out it's a little tougher shooting at distance than shooting a school full of children like those that inspire them have done.Maybe a warning. If you don’t go now. Next time we won’t miss. Was a Very easy shot
Make Trump think…. Is it worth it.
I'm sure most everyone on this forum could make that shot but who knows, maybe this was one of those antifa soy-boys who saved all his money for his first rifle and found out it's a little tougher shooting at distance than shooting a school full of children like those that inspire them have done.
Sure you did. I was talking about how Trump ought to respond, and how you want him to be magnanimous after one or more people tried to assassinate him. This after more than 8 years of lies and impeachments and arrests and prosecutions and on and on.I did not put, or try to put words into your mouth. Maybe go back and re-read.... You seem to not want Trump to settle things down a bit, good for you. Apparently you want things to escalate tonight.
How in the world did the Secret service not secure that roof?
That's the point. Constitutional authority encompasses acts that would be patently illegal, if not committed by the president. This was covered in the arguments and hypotheticals posed to the Court.So, murdering people is part of the Constitution? Weird, I must have missed that as well when studying my Constitution.