• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

War Room Lounge v53: Short Notice

How do you sleep?

  • Total voters
    47
Status
Not open for further replies.
MiniCraque said:


Ignore the cringey choir in the beginning and think to yourself: did the UFC ever had a Japanese sweaty announcer, in a thong, pounding a giant drum?

39619.jpg
Click to expand...

I miss the productions
 
Pride knew how to put on a show. Hate everything involving promotion/presentation w/UFC, and I mean literally everything except Bruce Buffer. Nothing else good about it. I'm sure a live show would feel cool for the electricity of it all, but Pride managed to give me arena chills on DVD. Fights are way more compelling with Japanese audiences too.

/2006 post
 
Fawlty said:
Pride knew how to put on a show. Hate everything involving promotion/presentation w/UFC, and I mean literally everything except Bruce Buffer. Nothing else good about it. I'm sure a live show would feel cool for the electricity of it all, but Pride managed to give me arena chills on DVD. Fights are way more compelling with Japanese audiences too.

/2006 post
Click to expand...
Nobody knows how to put on a fight spectacle quite like the Japanese. Honestly, I was pretty let down at live UFC in that regard, and never expected much in the first place..
 
Limbo Pete said:
Nobody knows how to put on a fight spectacle quite like the Japanese. Honestly, I was pretty let down at live UFC in that regard, and never expected much in the first place..
Click to expand...
The only time they've been in town here, the biggest name on the card was Jeremy Stephens. OOF. I guess Usman also spent 15 minutes laying down on top of somebody, but whatever. Glad I skipped it.
 
Fawlty said:
The only time they've been in town here, the biggest name on the card was Jeremy Stephens. OOF. I guess Usman also spent 15 minutes laying down on top of somebody, but whatever. Glad I skipped it.
Click to expand...
I got Dodson/Lineker. Not a great fight or a great card lmao.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I've had them only once, and I've been here for 15 years. Plus that one time was bullshit.
Click to expand...

I feel in the same boat. Though got them three times, my stubborn side still kind of feels none we legit; one was an administrative type error based on something like internet address, once for making a shit post about Isis paraphernalia in the Las Vegas shooter's hotel room (that was my most deserving card, but even then....), and once for being overly critical of Michael Brown when they had that hands up don't shoot fiasco.
 
Tycho Brah said:
LOL.

I got a single yellow from BAM for dismantling a guy who asked to be psychologized. I didn't even include the obligatory fo/ky.

I also got some weirdly aggressive PMs from Fogie once but I'm pretty sure he thought I was someone else.

Both instances were more amusing that irritating.
Click to expand...


I can't rememer if it was Computer Fogie or Foster From Sherdog, but one of those two seemed to have a bone to pick with me. Think it was Foster.
 
Eh, I never had any warnings or cards. Amazing really considering I've posted mostly in the War Room since I joined (I just lurked for news up until then, after originally coming here from the supergreg highlight videos I found on some p2p network and the fighter stats).
To be fair, before I became a mod I thought posters were taking the piss when they commented on being reported.
 
SAF and a few other groups filed an amicus brief in the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the criminal appeal of U.S.A. v. Raphael Hunt-Irving, which challenges the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession by even non-violent felons. Its a great brief and I hope you all read it. That said, I would note that there are historical examples of people being deemed unvirtuous who were not dangerous per se such as counterfeiters pursuant to the Treason Act of 1351. But that is really neither here nor there. What is relevant is to determine what persons are deemed outside of the historical right to arms. Some classes of persons are outside the scope of the Second Amendment right per Heller. The relevant class here is certain types of criminals. Thus, the preliminary question is what is a crime?

Blackstone defined a crime as “an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it” 4 Bl. Comm. 15. However I submit that an act was not necessarily a crime just because it was prohibited by a public law. It is necessary to look further and ascertain the ground upon which the act was punished and by whom the punishment is imposed. To constitute a crime, an act had to have been punished to protect the public and punishment had to have been dealt by the State or other sovereign power. Thus in the case of In re Bergin., 31 Wis. 383 (1872), it was held that any wrong against the public which is punishable in a criminal proceeding prosecuted by the state in its own name or in the name of the people, or of the sovereign, is a crime within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime and that the term therefore includes both felonies and misdemeanors. See also, People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N.W. 1124 (1889).

At Common Law there were there were three classes of Crimes: Treasons, Felonies and Misdemeanors. At common law, felonies were those offenses which occasioned forfeiture of the lands and goods of the offender and to which might be added death or other punishment according to the degree of guilt. 4. Bl. Comm. 94; Fasset v. Smith , 23 N.Y. 257(1891); Bannon v. U.S., 156 U.S. 464 (1895). The Common Law felonies were murder (this included suicide), manslaughter, rape, sodomy, robbery, larceny, arson, burglary, and arguably mayhem. See William Lawrence Clark, William Lawrence Marshal New York, Fred B Rothman & Co., A Treatise on the Law of Crime (1905) at 12. All other crimes were either misdemeanors or treasons.

Treason - At common law treason was divided into petit or high treason. High treason was the compassing of the King's death, and aiding and comforting of his enemies, the forging or counterfeiting of the privy seal, or the killing of the chancellor, or either of the king's justices; and petit treason was where a wife murdered her husband, an ecclesiastic his lord or ordinary, or a servant his master. In this country, treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States, and consists of levying of war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Id at 10. At common law all other crimes were misdemeanors.

Felony by Statute- Since the ratification of the Second Amendment many crimes which at common law were misdemeanors have been lifted by statute to felony. Heller teaches us that constitutional rights and their limitations should be viewed at the time they were enshrined. Accordingly, crimes deemed felonies by the modern day legislature do not necessarily disqualify one from Second Amendment rights.

The ultimate question one must ask when determining whether a person is presumptively disqualified from Second Amendment rights is: what classes of persons were historically precluded from Second Amendment rights? It is those classes which were precluded in 1791, i.e., non-virtuous citizens. The classical republican notions inextricably linked to the Founding of the United States emphasized civic virtue, i.e., the virtuous citizenry. Historically, the State disarmed non-virtuous citizens and those like children or the mentally unbalanced, who were deemed incapable of virtue. See, e.g. Robert Dowlut, The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign? 36 OKLA. L.REV. 65, 96 (1983) (“Colonial and English societies of the eighteenth century, as well as their modern counterparts, have excluded infants, idiots, lunatics, and felons [from possessing firearms].”).

Accordingly, the ultimate question is what is civic virtue? In the political philosophy inextricably tied to the Founding of our nation a person with civic virtue possessed qualities associated with the effective functioning of the civil and political order, or the preservation of its values and principles. Skinner, Quentin (1978-11-30). The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume 2, The Age of Reformation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521294355. It is those persons who do not possess these qualities that are outside of the scope of the Second Amendment right. Whether a person is dangerous or not does not necessarily determine this.

 
Lord Coke said:
challenges the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession by even non-violent felons.
Click to expand...

To a non lawyer speak person, think it has a chance?

I'd love to see a system like, day your probation ends, you can again register as a voter

3 years no re-offenses, you no longer need to check the box for being a felon on job application

5 or 10 years no re-offences, gun rights can be restored.

And then a person who had a violent crime committed with a firearm, during sentencing could be placed on a lifetime no firearm ownership or possession list similar to sex offender registry. Thus there are still controls for the potentially dangerous ones. Could also apply those controls to any aspect of the schedule of restoration of rights depending on the crime and potential interaction with public.
 
Lord Coke said:
SAF and a few other groups filed an amicus brief in the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the criminal appeal of U.S.A. v. Raphael Hunt-Irving, which challenges the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession by even non-violent felons. Its a great brief and I hope you all read it. That said, I would note that there are historical examples of people being deemed unvirtuous who were not dangerous per se such as counterfeiters pursuant to the Treason Act of 1351. But that is really neither here nor there. What is relevant is to determine what persons are deemed outside of the historical right to arms. Some classes of persons are outside the scope of the Second Amendment right per Heller. The relevant class here is certain types of criminals. Thus, the preliminary question is what is a crime?

Blackstone defined a crime as “an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it” 4 Bl. Comm. 15. However I submit that an act was not necessarily a crime just because it was prohibited by a public law. It is necessary to look further and ascertain the ground upon which the act was punished and by whom the punishment is imposed. To constitute a crime, an act had to have been punished to protect the public and punishment had to have been dealt by the State or other sovereign power. Thus in the case of In re Bergin., 31 Wis. 383 (1872), it was held that any wrong against the public which is punishable in a criminal proceeding prosecuted by the state in its own name or in the name of the people, or of the sovereign, is a crime within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime and that the term therefore includes both felonies and misdemeanors. See also, People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N.W. 1124 (1889).

At Common Law there were there were three classes of Crimes: Treasons, Felonies and Misdemeanors. At common law, felonies were those offenses which occasioned forfeiture of the lands and goods of the offender and to which might be added death or other punishment according to the degree of guilt. 4. Bl. Comm. 94; Fasset v. Smith , 23 N.Y. 257(1891); Bannon v. U.S., 156 U.S. 464 (1895). The Common Law felonies were murder (this included suicide), manslaughter, rape, sodomy, robbery, larceny, arson, burglary, and arguably mayhem. See William Lawrence Clark, William Lawrence Marshal New York, Fred B Rothman & Co., A Treatise on the Law of Crime (1905) at 12. All other crimes were either misdemeanors or treasons.

Treason - At common law treason was divided into petit or high treason. High treason was the compassing of the King's death, and aiding and comforting of his enemies, the forging or counterfeiting of the privy seal, or the killing of the chancellor, or either of the king's justices; and petit treason was where a wife murdered her husband, an ecclesiastic his lord or ordinary, or a servant his master. In this country, treason is defined by the Constitution of the United States, and consists of levying of war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Id at 10. At common law all other crimes were misdemeanors.

Felony by Statute- Since the ratification of the Second Amendment many crimes which at common law were misdemeanors have been lifted by statute to felony. Heller teaches us that constitutional rights and their limitations should be viewed at the time they were enshrined. Accordingly, crimes deemed felonies by the modern day legislature do not necessarily disqualify one from Second Amendment rights.

The ultimate question one must ask when determining whether a person is presumptively disqualified from Second Amendment rights is: what classes of persons were historically precluded from Second Amendment rights? It is those classes which were precluded in 1791, i.e., non-virtuous citizens. The classical republican notions inextricably linked to the Founding of the United States emphasized civic virtue, i.e., the virtuous citizenry. Historically, the State disarmed non-virtuous citizens and those like children or the mentally unbalanced, who were deemed incapable of virtue. See, e.g. Robert Dowlut, The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign? 36 OKLA. L.REV. 65, 96 (1983) (“Colonial and English societies of the eighteenth century, as well as their modern counterparts, have excluded infants, idiots, lunatics, and felons [from possessing firearms].”).

Accordingly, the ultimate question is what is civic virtue? In the political philosophy inextricably tied to the Founding of our nation a person with civic virtue possessed qualities associated with the effective functioning of the civil and political order, or the preservation of its values and principles. Skinner, Quentin (1978-11-30). The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume 2, The Age of Reformation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521294355. It is those persons who do not possess these qualities that are outside of the scope of the Second Amendment right. Whether a person is dangerous or not does not necessarily determine this.

Click to expand...


I am not a legal expert, specifically not on US constitutional law, but this interpretation seems only to examine what the correct original interpretation (and therefore consequences) of the law were. The question to me is whether this equals a teleological interpretation (what was the purpose of the law).
 
@Lord Coke I do think this is a good attempt, btw - I consider rehabilitation a key goal of the judicial system in order to be both just and effective. As arms possession is a right and not a privilege in the US, far-reaching bans on possession based on priors should definitely not be handed out just because.
 
I don’t remember getting any infractions but it’s completely likely early on. Back in 09, I was really foul mouthed in the heavies. Someone even liked a post of mine from 2010 (thread must’ve gotten bumped or something) and I was initially confused what was going on because I didn’t think I’d post something like that.
 
Ruprecht said:
I liked the presentation, rule set, talent and tournament format over the UFC at the time. The "battle of styles" concept seems dated now, but that, the ring and the Japanese crowd just appealed to me a lot more than the UFC's nu-metal, just-bleed-bro, cage fighting style of promoting, and it's comparatively heavy emphasis on wrestling.
Click to expand...
I preferred the cage to the ring, I come from BJJ so I didn't enjoy the boxing ring that much and having a bunch of guys pushing the ropes when people fell near them was amateurish in my view.
I'm not into the nu-metal, just bleed crowd either but I'm not sure having this was much better:
MiniCraque said:
39619.jpg
Click to expand...
Not to mention I think the Japanese crowd ends up being boring. I'm Brazilian so I do enjoy some Uh vai morrer.

Ruprecht said:
I came from a TMA background and never like prowrestling, although I was a massive Streetfighter (the game) fan as a teen (and there was certainly an element of that in Pride's presentation). Hence why I liked the "Battle of Styles" idea.
Anything prowrestling, the freakshows and pro-Japan judging always pissed me off. It even took me some time to come around on Sakuraba. Although I didn't mind the Crocop-Wandy fight or Hunt-Wandy fight.
Click to expand...
I never saw prowrestling either, it isn't popular here and I did enjoy the battle of styles. The interesting thing is that both Pride and the UFC used prowrestling gimmicks, albeit different ones. Pride had actual prowrestling fights like that masked dude vs Cro cop. While the UFC uses American prowrestling promotion tactics.
About Wandy I think these fights were alright, he was still competitive against these guys. Of course you know this but just for argument's sake I don't think it's that big of a deal when a 220lbs man fights a 230lbs man or even a 260lbs one, but when it's a 220lbs(Wandy) vs 180lbs(Sakuraba) it's much worse, after a certain threshold weight starts to matters less and these fights would be acceptable under unified rules too.
 
Limbo Pete said:
Nobody knows how to put on a fight spectacle quite like the Japanese. Honestly, I was pretty let down at live UFC in that regard, and never expected much in the first place..
Click to expand...
I've only ever gotten "chills" for big fights or returns. GSP vs Bisping was one, obviously Nick's fights, Nathan vs Conor.....haven't really gotten "chills" for a fight in a while.
 
Cuauhtemoc said:
I preferred the cage to the ring, I come from BJJ so I didn't enjoy the boxing ring that much and having a bunch of guys pushing the ropes when people fell near them was amateurish in my view.
I'm not into the nu-metal, just bleed crowd either but I'm not sure having this was much better:

Not to mention I think the Japanese crowd ends up being boring. I'm Brazilian so I do enjoy some Uh vai morrer.


I never saw prowrestling either, it isn't popular here and I did enjoy the battle of styles. The interesting thing is that both Pride and the UFC used prowrestling gimmicks, albeit different ones. Pride had actual prowrestling fights like that masked dude vs Cro cop. While the UFC uses American prowrestling promotion tactics.
About Wandy I think these fights were alright, he was still competitive against these guys. Of course you know this but just for argument's sake I don't think it's that big of a deal when a 220lbs man fights a 230lbs man or even a 260lbs one, but when it's a 220lbs(Wandy) vs 180lbs(Sakuraba) it's much worse, after a certain threshold weight starts to matters less and these fights would be acceptable under unified rules too.
Click to expand...

That’s why I find it weird when people want to add more weight classes and do it in ten lb increments at the larger classes. Doesn’t make sense at all and I think you can just look at LHW and HW history and see being the bigger guy didn’t mean you’d have the clear advantage. If that was the case, we would’ve had far more 265 champs. Instead, we get 230-240lb guys who don’t cut usually on top.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,933
Messages
58,403,139
Members
176,028
Latest member
zainbando99

Share this page

Back
Top