Aaron Hernandez

~Sheila~ wrote:Seems like he is in a bit of trouble!  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

~Sheila~ wrote:Seems like he is in a bit of trouble!  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

guppy wrote:Obstruction of Justice or Interfering in a Police Investigation at a minimum.  Both are felonies.  If its worse than that then his life is over. 

If he threw away everything that Kraft and Belichick did for him because of a stupid gang mentality that he could not walk away from, and let these low life "hangers on" still hang around with him, then Number 1, he's an idiot, and Number 2, its just sad to see someone who had everything throw it away because of temper or whatever.  I'll wait and see where the evidence takes us, but its not looking good for the young man.  Lets let the facts come out, but it may be that he never steps on the field again. 

By the way, his tatoos all over his arms are friggin ugly.  Same with other athletes with ink all over them.  Its gross.  Turns me off.  Even though I know it is wrong, I do make negative judgments about people if they have tatoos all over them.  A small understated tatoo in an unconspicuous place I have no problem with.  But when tatoos cover basically everything, they look to me like they belong in freak show.  Just my opinion.

wyckedheart8 wrote:

guppy wrote:Obstruction of Justice or Interfering in a Police Investigation at a minimum.  Both are felonies.  If its worse than that then his life is over. 

If he threw away everything that Kraft and Belichick did for him because of a stupid gang mentality that he could not walk away from, and let these low life "hangers on" still hang around with him, then Number 1, he's an idiot, and Number 2, its just sad to see someone who had everything throw it away because of temper or whatever.  I'll wait and see where the evidence takes us, but its not looking good for the young man.  Lets let the facts come out, but it may be that he never steps on the field again. 

By the way, his tatoos all over his arms are friggin ugly.  Same with other athletes with ink all over them.  Its gross.  Turns me off.  Even though I know it is wrong, I do make negative judgments about people if they have tatoos all over them.  A small understated tatoo in an unconspicuous place I have no problem with.  But when tatoos cover basically everything, they look to me like they belong in freak show.  Just my opinion.

 I agree with you in each area you touched on, however I dont see anything wrong with tattoos /piercings unless they are all over your face neck and so fourth I have 5 tattoos myself & no piercings & never will , everyone has the right to do whatever with their bodys but for the most part the public has a right to their opinions as well and doing it when you are young and still no clue what you want to do with your life not many jobs are available when going in for an interview no mater what your qualifications and or experience.


I am basically saying the same thing you.  People can do whatever they want with their bodies - absolutely.  There is nothing wrong with tatoos done in good taste.  (The ultimate in BAD TASTE in tatoos is Charles Manson putting a Nazi swastika in the middle of his forehead.)  I am only talking about what my own personal opinion is of the tatoos that are completely covering major body parts.  Hernandez's tatoos completely cover ALL of BOTH arms.  My personal opinion of that type of body "art" is that it is unattractive, period.  Thats my personal opinion of his specific tatoos.   I think taking it to that extreme comes from a gang mentality.  On the other hand, that is not true in all cases I'm sure.  I understand many, many people may think its cool.  Again, to each his own.  I simply have a different opinion regarding the asthetics of it, which ordinarily I would keep to myself, but I guess I let it out today.  To me its not attractive.  But hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

George1963 wrote:

~Sheila~ wrote:Seems like he is in a bit of trouble!  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Its all kinds of fun being a make believe wannabe gangtsa douche until it gets real. Prison's gonna love this punk.
My twin's a state cop up there and I talked to him this morning. He's not involved in this but he's heard things and while I'm not sure how much I can say because I'm not sure how much is public at this moment, with 51 years in law enforcement between us this kid might be the biggest moron either of us has ever heard of.


George, I didn't know (1) you had a twin, (2) he is a Mass. statie, (3) you also are/were in law enforcement.  Interesting.  What's your job if you don't mind me asking?


I don't think its "all kinds of fun being a make believe wannabe gangsta" -- unless you're a half wit, which apparently, this guy must be if he's still into that garbage even a little bit.   

You think Kraft and Belichick are just a little furious right now?

People were making fun of BB for stocking up on so many tight ends.  Now maybe we should criticize him for not stockpiling enough of them.  LOL.  They're dropping like flies.  Unless...........you thinking what I'm thinking?.......... "The Pats are facing third and eight.  Brady in the shotgun.  He drops back two steps.  He looks.  He  fires.  He's got Tim Tebow, and Tebow carries two men an extra six yards before he goes down and easily gets the first down."    Tim Tebow signing is BB always preparing for the unexpected.  Whatdaya think?  LOL.

George1963 wrote:
I don't think its "all kinds of fun being a make believe wannabe gangsta" -- unless you're a half wit, which apparently, this guy must be if he's still into that garbage even a little bit.



Fooled 'em into a big contract though, didn't he?  


Apparently.  What a disappointment.  Or shock is more like it.



You think Kraft and Belichick are just a little furious right now?


I'm sure, but they have nobody to blame but themselves.


Ya, stupid them for giving a guy a chance and thinking he will straighten up and fly right.  Perhaps they were inept for totally misreading this 23 year old individual.  And perhaps they jumped the gun on giving him an extension.  However, they did have him under their roof for two years when they extended him, and he had been nothing but a model employee during that time.  He even teared up when he was awarded his contract, and of course said all the right things.  I'm sure they thought they had a pretty good read on him.  For Kraft and Belichick, this is no doubt a shock coming out of left field that blindsided them. 

From the fans' perspective, many Pats fans are very upset.  Their bottom line take is, "You gave this guy the money because he's 23.  But you wouldn't pay Wes Welker because he's 31.  F%#king brilliant.  How'd that work out for ya?" 


The cap implications when this guy is suspended, cut, whatever happens are ridiculous.

That sucks.


BTW, let's not forget there's a dead guy here.

No one is.

LRJets wrote:Tough set. I'm particularly impressed by how they even strap their ladies.

Or teachers.




[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I wonder if it would be as hard in Israel to get a background check law that makes perfectly good common sense passed as it is here?  Or should we just sell high magazine assault rifles out of Walmart to every high schooler who walks through the door, because not to do so would in some twisted way of thinking be offensive to the Second Amendment? 

George1963 wrote:


Which common sense things were you talking about Lloyd?
The one that would require me to get a background check on my son before giving him a gun as a gift?


So I say, what's wrong with that?  Is going through the background check procedure so offensive to his  - or anyone's -- "rights" that we, as a free society simply can't allow it?   In the name of common sense, can't we trade off some "rights' for some security that the background check would provide?  What's the problem with that?  I say too bad about a little inconvenience before getting a gun.  Like a driver's license, it is not a right, so much as a privilege to own a gun IMO.  BTW, there are guns in my house.  I believe most NRA members are good people.  But I think the NRA's former president and new president are complete wack jobs.  The new guy blames gun control efforts ont the "war of Northern aggression".  What a joke.  You can't say something like that, and also be mentally stable.  You simply can't.  He also said "its only a matter of time before we own colored people again."  For real.  Its no joke.   Hey NRA, lets have it your way.  Lets just arm every single person in America.  Then we'll be truly safe, right?  Fucking neanderthal wack jobs.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George1963 wrote:Which common sense things were you talking about Lloyd?
The one that would require me to get a background check on my son before giving him a gun as a gift?


So I say, what's wrong with that?  Is going through the background check procedure so offensive to his  - or anyone's -- "rights" that we, as a free society simply can't allow it?


My son. I'd have to run a background check on my son. Required by law. You don't see anything friggin' brain dead about that?


Absolutely not.  And that is the point.  I don't understand why being ultra pro-gun means you have to totally flip out because you're required to wait a day or few while a background check is done.  OMG, its the end of the world.  A background check.  Wow.  Big friggin deal.  The argument can be made the other way too.  Its brain dead NOT to do background checks.....even for your son.   I think the NRA leadership (not rank and file membership) are very dangerous people.

Not getting into a debate about abortion, a completely different subject that implicates completely different moral principles than gun ownership does.  A totally different animal which would takes us down a road I don't care to go.

George1963 wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Her rifle looks like its the type that is used for sport.  Maybe she felt she didn't need a high capacity military style assault rifle to take down game in Alaska.  Good for her.  She also probably went through a background check, and while doing so, probably didn't complain or cry about her "rights" being violated.  She just went through the process.  Then she got her rifle.  Probably never said, "Wow that background check was such an unbelieveable hassle.  I feel so violated."  

There are "rights".  And then there are "privileges".  Like a driver's license, I think owning a gun is a privilege you earn by showing you are qualified because you are of good character, and not a repeat criminal, and a background check will help establish that.  Some may call that position radical.  Oh well, like I really care what those people think.   

George1963 wrote:Her rifle looks like its the type that is used for sport.  Maybe she felt she didn't need a high capacity military style assault rifle to take down game in Alaska.  Good for her.  She also probably went through a background check, and while doing so, probably didn't complain or cry about her "rights" being violated.  She just went through the process.  Then she got her rifle.  Probably never said, "Wow that background check was such an unbelieveable hassle.  I feel so violated."  

There are "rights".  And then there are "privileges".  Like a driver's license, I think owning a gun is a privilege you earn by showing you are qualified because you are of good character, and not a repeat criminal, and a background check will help establish that.  Some may call that position radical.  Oh well, like I really care what those people think.   



Oh, ok. You think a constitutionally guaranteed right is a "privilege". That clears up a lot.

I guarantee you, if we could go back and talk to the authors of the Second Amendment, and they saw what was happening in today's society, they would say, "We didn't mean the words we wrote to stand for what those NRA leaders claim they mean."  Where in the Constitution does it say "Congress shall make no law that allows law enforcement authorities to require background checks"?  Where does it say that?  Furthermore, answer me this:  What are licenses for?  Are licenses for Rights, or are they for Privileges?  Do we issue licenses for the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amemdment - constitutionally guaranteed right)?  No.  Do we issue licenses for the right to vote or the right to worship as we please?  No.  These are "rights", and therefore no license is required. 

Now, do we issue licenses to own guns?  YES.  Why?  I thought licenses are only issued for privileges, like driving a car or a boat, or practicing law or medicine.  If you don't do those things responsibly your license can be taken away.  Why have gun licenses?  Why?  Because its a PRIVILEGE IMO. Thats why.

Also, the Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  I would point out one key word in that Amendment:  "regulated".   What does "regulate" mean?  It means its not open ended.  There are necessary controls from time to time.  We "regulate" things.  Its only reasonable to do so.  That includes guns, imo.  They should be regulated.  That includes background checks.   Otherwise, why don't we just return to the Wild West.  Lets all us  -  everybody -- walk around with guns on our holsters.  Every American.  All 300 million.   Hey, its "constitutionally guaranteed", right? 




That .22 squirrel gun that fake Sarah has by the way, has at least 2 of the cosmetic features that would make it a banned "military style assault weapon" under Feinsteins law. Yea, cosmetic. They want to ban guns that are scary looking.


2 things;
Slippery slope Gup. They start small. A lot of them want all guns banned altogether. Some of them are even honest enough to say so
and
They, like you, have no idea what the second amendment was meant for. Or what the Supreme Court has held on it over the years.

I beg to differ.  The "slippery slope" argument is complete B.S.  That is nothing but a scare tactic that I never buy into.  "Its a slippery slope" is designed to scare, nothing more.  Its a false argument.  Don't fall for it.   Hey, you know what's a "slippery slope"?  Putting our pictures on our passports.  Yup.  I can't believe we are required to do that.  How infringing on our right to privacy.  You know what's next?  They are going to make us give DNA samples to prove we are the same person whose picture is on our passports.  Yup, its a slippery slope alright.  And then the next thing is that we are going to be required to all wear GPS bracelets so they can track us 24/7.  Its only a matter of time.   Slippery slope you know.

 I thought being from a law enforcement background, you would favor common sense background checks.  Don't background checks make the lives of cops easier and safer?  What?  Are you worried  that what will happen is "First background checks.  Next 'they' (whoever 'they' are) will be so emboldened by that law that 'they' are going to take away our 'scary' looking guns"?  Please.  Save that argument for the uneducated yahoos who easily fall prey to simplistic scare tactics.  

You know so much about what the Second Amendment was "meant for", tell me why is the word "Militia" in there?  What "Militia" are "they" referring to?

Again, what the radical pro-gun nut jobs do is change the argument and change the issue.  They deflect.  That's their real talent and real strength.  The issue is not, I repeat, not, taking away people's guns.  I don't believe the guns that are in my house as I type this are gonig to be taken away.  "They" are never going to do that, and that is simply never, ever going to happen.  The issue is about some common sense regulation of a dangerous instrumentality, that has, with advances in technology, become so much greater in firepower than the authors of the Second Amendment could have ever imagined when they wrote that right into our Constitution 222 years ago.

George1963 wrote:

Oh, ok. You think a constitutionally guaranteed right is a "privilege". That clears up a lot.


"Right" = Granted by the Constitution (eg. vote, worship, assemble, speak freely, etc.).  NO LICENSE REQUIRED.

"Privilege" = Granted by governing authorities after proving one is qualified to exercise such privilege (eg. driving, practicing law, medicine, etc).  LICENSE REQUIRED.

Owning a gun = LICENSE REQUIRED.

Ergo:

Owning a gun = PRIVILEGE.


You do not have to ask to exercise a right. 


You do have to ask to exercise a privilege. 


I'm pleased to have clears things  up.