- Banning online firearm and ammunition sales
And make the acquistion of any uncommon ammo impossible.
6 First Gun Control Measures To Expect From A Biden Administration / Now gone off the rails!
- Thread starter FRB
- Start date
And make the acquistion of any uncommon ammo impossible.
There are in my scenario.
spat
.950 JDJ
Then you should have stated that as one of the premesis of your hypothetical.
In that case, yes? Jo wins.
Now you just need to convince 80 million people to do things your way.
pjzwtl
.308 Win
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
it also limits the amount you can buy at the store.
IrishMick
.44 mag
YES!!!! The airing of the grievances! Happy Festivus Everyone! Due to Monkeyfaces covid decrees there will be no Feats of Strength this year.
Pissed Off Patriot
.223 Rem
Now you want links?
You could have watched it live during the Senate hearings. Or listened to it when it was broadcast on talk radio shows. Hundreds of people giving SWORN testimony to the Senate under penalty of PERJURY, and you want links.
We've got ourselves a real fucktard.
Pissed Off Patriot
.223 Rem
drowhawk
.44 mag
I watched the Senate hearings.
All hot air. Being this is an online forum, this can appear as condensation or "fog" on your computer screen.
Now I've been called gay AND a fucktard on the same thread. I'm flattered. I prefer to be a gentleman about politics with maybe a few sarcastic low blows here and there but you guys are sooo original with the name calling. Did you learn that from the cool kids?
Pissed Off Patriot
.223 Rem
Pissed Off Patriot
.223 Rem
I think I need this shirt for Christmas.....
4WHLDRFTN
.308 Win
Bidones not going to be prez .. or the dirty clam
spat
.950 JDJ
The difference is that one had a realistic chance of happening and the other is a complete fairytale.Right. In my made up scenario Jo wins.
Just like in yours Trump wins.
...they're both complete fairy tales. We've established this...
spat
.950 JDJ
On the scale that both "The Bills winning the superbowl" and "The Geneseo Central JV football team winning the superbowl" are both fairy tails, sure.
drowhawk
.44 mag
Testimony is testimony. Not evidence.
I can say you are a half witted parsnip under oath all I want.
That doesn't mean I have evidence that you are a half witted parsnip.
drowhawk
.44 mag
In past tense, the only scenario that had a realistic chance of happening was the scenario that actually happened.
That's how past tense works.
spat
.950 JDJ
No, no it's not.
Past tense means you are considering the situation with what was known at the time.
The chance that it rained yesterday *now* is 0%. But the chance yesterday that it might rain was not.
You guys can play whatever games you want to convince yourself that the chance of a Trump victory was the same as the chance of a Jorgenson victory, but all you actually end up doing is convincing everybody else not to take you seriously.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
He didnt watch it.The guy is full of shit. Anyone that actually watched it would have been surprised by the amount of evidence given . Even if they disagreed, They would never make the bullshit claim of no evidence. Since he already has all the answers why would he watch it. ? he has no clue of the evidence, and never actually looked for it.
spat
.950 JDJ
Testimony is not evidence ? That is going to be news to every Judge and Jury in the country.
It's not actually that often that they drag the raw physical evidence into the court and hand it to the jury to fondle. Typically they just have experts come in and offer testimony about it.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
No. It is actually legal evidence Sparky. I have plenty of evidence that your a half witted parsnip by reading your misinformed posts.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
The machines and the ballots are physical evidence , , eyewitness testimony, video cameras, and IT experts. There is also circumstantial evidence which supports the whole case.
Now, you can say its all bullshit, and I can say its all true . But unless its diasected in a courtroom by experts for its validity , Your claim has zero merit. You dont believe it? Well who gives a fuck what you or I believe? This has to be settled in a court room once and for all
Now, you can say its all bullshit, and I can say its all true . But unless its diasected in a courtroom by experts for its validity , Your claim has zero merit. You dont believe it? Well who gives a fuck what you or I believe? This has to be settled in a court room once and for all
Last edited:
Pissed Off Patriot
.223 Rem
Apparently you don't understand the concept of weighted testimony either.
p.s. Using a straw man argument cements your fucktardiness.
Last edited:
drowhawk
.44 mag
*you're
If the senate hearing yielded any real evidence, why the inaction? If what you guys are regurgitating over and over again is true, why will not a single judge take it seriously? Over 50 dismissed cases. The recount in Wisconsin showed a stronger lead for Biden than initially thought.
We have differing opinions on the definition of "evidence" I guess. In my hypothetical scenario, evidence reflects something tangible, measurable, and undeniable. In your scenario, evidence is what someone "says."
You all act like my acceptance of reality means I embrace a Biden presidency.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Well, I use the legal definition of evidence.
The Federal Rules of Evidence are broken down into 11 articles:
The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.[1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.
The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay, authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence, standards showing how strong the evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
The Federal Rules of Evidence are broken down into 11 articles:
- General Provisions
- Judicial Notice
- Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings
- Relevancy and Its Limits
- Privileges
- Witnesses
- Opinions and Expert Testimony
- Hearsay
- Authentication and Identification
- Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs
- Miscellaneous Rules
The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.[1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.
The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay, authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence, standards showing how strong the evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
drowhawk
.44 mag
Did you really just ctrl+V the wiki page for Evidence? Weren't you just telling us how we can't lecture you about evidence because you were a LEO or something along those lines? Now you need the help of wiki to form your argument?
You all freaking out and resorting to name-calling simply on the basis of a disagreement illustrates EXACTLY why I would never consider voting R or D. Both sides hate deviation from the groupthink. You think Trump has all this evidence? Awesome. If he wins in court, even better. Makes no difference to me. I truly couldn't care less if they stick a red or a blue stick where the sun don't shine because that's exactly what both of them do. Look at how they came together to collectively sodomize the American people once again with their "stimulus bill." And I bet you Trump will sign it. You know why? Because he became the swamp monster he promised to eradicate. He is NOT an outlier like so many of you think.
Our national debt is the highest it's ever been or ever was under Obama. That's a FACT. I have evidence of that. Biden will be no better of course, just a different approach, a different form of social control. A different flavor of shit, if you will, that they will inevitably cram down your throat regardless of which side it comes from.
You all freaking out and resorting to name-calling simply on the basis of a disagreement illustrates EXACTLY why I would never consider voting R or D. Both sides hate deviation from the groupthink. You think Trump has all this evidence? Awesome. If he wins in court, even better. Makes no difference to me. I truly couldn't care less if they stick a red or a blue stick where the sun don't shine because that's exactly what both of them do. Look at how they came together to collectively sodomize the American people once again with their "stimulus bill." And I bet you Trump will sign it. You know why? Because he became the swamp monster he promised to eradicate. He is NOT an outlier like so many of you think.
Our national debt is the highest it's ever been or ever was under Obama. That's a FACT. I have evidence of that. Biden will be no better of course, just a different approach, a different form of social control. A different flavor of shit, if you will, that they will inevitably cram down your throat regardless of which side it comes from.
Do you know what TYPE of forum you are on?? Serious question Drowhawk. Its a GUN forum. So what do people on a gun forum concerned about. National debt? NO of course any new gun control which takes my and your freedoms away from owning, using and buying, trading guns and related equipment. Trump was good for gun owner. Biden will be very very very BAD. If you REALLY are a gun owner do you not either buy ammo or reloading supplies online? I have no local gun stores near me and the ones closest dont stock sqaut and are way over priced. Biden wants all ammo and reloading and parts STOPPED online. He wants to CONFISCATE guns. No past president EVER said that out loud like biden. .
So you say you dont care if Trump or its Biden in the White House. That tells me you are a TROLL Not even a gun owner. Your some liberal loser trying to get a rise out of everyone. Great you succeeded. Go away. ignore this fool everyone. He is a liar.
drowhawk
.44 mag
You are making the assumption that I think Trump is pro-2A.