Biden reaches (allegedly) 270, now let's talk recounts, voting audits & court battles

[P1tchblack]

All I know, Pitch, is that most leftist jurisdictions BAN conceal-carry, unless they are prohibited from banning by the state.  Leftists tell us that the left doesn't want to prevent us from having guns while simultaneously working to prevent us from having guns.  In other words, they lie to our faces.  Lying is what the left does best.  Leftists are liars.  If they weren't liars, they wouldn't be leftists.

About the only area where R & D significantly differ on ownership...

That's not true.  You're citing polls.  I'm citing the REALITY that most leftists jurisdictions BAN conceal-carry and some even ban people from being able to have a gun in their car.  Don't show me polls; show me leftist jurisdictions that support conceal-carry for all law-abiding citizens.

You didn't read my entire post 

[K9Buck]

All I know, Pitch, is that most leftist jurisdictions BAN conceal-carry, unless they are prohibited from banning by the state.  Leftists tell us that the left doesn't want to prevent us from having guns while simultaneously working to prevent us from having guns.  In other words, they lie to our faces.  Lying is what the left does best.  Leftists are liars.  If they weren't liars, they wouldn't be leftists.

About the only area where R & D significantly differ on ownership...

That's not true.  You're citing polls.  I'm citing the REALITY that most leftists jurisdictions BAN conceal-carry and some even ban people from being able to have a gun in their car.  Don't show me polls; show me leftist jurisdictions that support conceal-carry for all law-abiding citizens.

You didn't read my entire post 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does the left do?  They "infringe" as they DENY citizens the RIGHT to "bear arms".

[P1tchblack]

All I know, Pitch, is that most leftist jurisdictions BAN conceal-carry, unless they are prohibited from banning by the state.  Leftists tell us that the left doesn't want to prevent us from having guns while simultaneously working to prevent us from having guns.  In other words, they lie to our faces.  Lying is what the left does best.  Leftists are liars.  If they weren't liars, they wouldn't be leftists.

About the only area where R & D significantly differ on ownership...

That's not true.  You're citing polls.  I'm citing the REALITY that most leftists jurisdictions BAN conceal-carry and some even ban people from being able to have a gun in their car.  Don't show me polls; show me leftist jurisdictions that support conceal-carry for all law-abiding citizens.

You didn't read my entire post 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does the left do?  They "infringe" as they DENY citizens the RIGHT to "bear arms".

Limitations on "bearing" arms have been around for hundreds of years.  Even in the infancy of the west, there were laws against carrying a gun within city limits.  I'm not saying I agree with it, but the only actual difference that impacts ownership is regarding certain rifles.

Everyone has their limits.  The Constitution says "Shall not be infringed", yet there are plenty of Republicans/Conservatives/Pro-gun people who will gladly allow the government to infringe on their rights, as long as they don't infringe on my rights.  An example is felons that are now free.  The most pro-2nd Amendment people here are more than happy to allow the government to infringe on the rights those people because, well, they're just scaaaary!

[P1tchblack]

Getting back to the topic, if Trump's lawyers have something, it's damn time to put up!

[zigbee]

About the only area where R & D significantly differ on ownership...

That's not true.  You're citing polls.  I'm citing the REALITY that most leftists jurisdictions BAN conceal-carry and some even ban people from being able to have a gun in their car.  Don't show me polls; show me leftist jurisdictions that support conceal-carry for all law-abiding citizens.

You didn't read my entire post 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does the left do?  They "infringe" as they DENY citizens the RIGHT to "bear arms".

Limitations on "bearing" arms have been around for hundreds of years.  Even in the infancy of the west, there were laws against carrying a gun within city limits.  I'm not saying I agree with it, but the only actual difference that impacts ownership is regarding certain rifles.

Everyone has their limits.  The Constitution says "Shall not be infringed", yet there are plenty of Republicans/Conservatives/Pro-gun people who will gladly allow the government to infringe on their rights, as long as they don't infringe on my rights.  An example is felons that are now free.  The most pro-2nd Amendment people here are more than happy to allow the government to infringe on the rights those people because, well, they're convicted violent offenders who have forfeited their rights by breaking laws.

Scarrrrrrrrrrrry?  Please, that is nonsense.   Try living in the real world.   FIFY

[P1tchblack]

That's not true.  You're citing polls.  I'm citing the REALITY that most leftists jurisdictions BAN conceal-carry and some even ban people from being able to have a gun in their car.  Don't show me polls; show me leftist jurisdictions that support conceal-carry for all law-abiding citizens.

You didn't read my entire post 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does the left do?  They "infringe" as they DENY citizens the RIGHT to "bear arms".

Limitations on "bearing" arms have been around for hundreds of years.  Even in the infancy of the west, there were laws against carrying a gun within city limits.  I'm not saying I agree with it, but the only actual difference that impacts ownership is regarding certain rifles.

Everyone has their limits.  The Constitution says "Shall not be infringed", yet there are plenty of Republicans/Conservatives/Pro-gun people who will gladly allow the government to infringe on their rights, as long as they don't infringe on my rights.  An example is felons that are now free.  The most pro-2nd Amendment people here are more than happy to allow the government to infringe on the rights those people because, well, they're convicted violent offenders who have forfeited their rights by breaking laws.

Scarrrrrrrrrrrry?  Please, that is nonsense.   Try living in the real world.   FIFY

Convicted offenders lose the majority of their rights when they are incarcerated.  Once they have done their time and paid their debt to society, there is no basis for denying rights.

[zigbee]

You didn't read my entire post 

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does the left do?  They "infringe" as they DENY citizens the RIGHT to "bear arms".

Limitations on "bearing" arms have been around for hundreds of years.  Even in the infancy of the west, there were laws against carrying a gun within city limits.  I'm not saying I agree with it, but the only actual difference that impacts ownership is regarding certain rifles.

Everyone has their limits.  The Constitution says "Shall not be infringed", yet there are plenty of Republicans/Conservatives/Pro-gun people who will gladly allow the government to infringe on their rights, as long as they don't infringe on my rights.  An example is felons that are now free.  The most pro-2nd Amendment people here are more than happy to allow the government to infringe on the rights those people because, well, they're convicted violent offenders who have forfeited their rights by breaking laws.

Scarrrrrrrrrrrry?  Please, that is nonsense.   Try living in the real world.   FIFY

Convicted offenders lose the majority of their rights when they are incarcerated.  Once they have done their time and paid their debt to society, there is no basis for denying rights.

You don't make laws....you may have opinion but its not worth much.  I'll give you the laws as written by law makers elected by majority of the people.  You can squawk all you wish but means zero.  Background checks are a purpose.  Why give someone a gun who has killed previous?

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAW
Federal law establishes a baseline national standard regarding the criteria that make people ineligible to acquire and possess firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, generally prohibits the sale to, and possession of firearms by, a person who:

Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for:
A federal crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (typically a felony)
A state crime that is not classified as a misdemeanor and is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year
A state crime that is classified as a misdemeanor under state law and is punishable by more than two years imprisonment3
Is a fugitive from justice4
Is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”5
Though certain states have legalized the use of medical and recreational marijuana, it remains illegal under federal law. Therefore, ATF considers people who use marijuana legally under state law unlawful users of a controlled substance.6
Is underage (For additional information about federal age restrictions for the purchase and possession of firearms, see our page on the Minimum Age to Purchase and Possess Firearms.)
Has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to self or others, or to “lack[] the mental capacity to contract or manage [their] own affairs,” as a result of their mental condition or illness (This prohibition also expressly applies when a person has been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty of a crime due to mental incapacity)7
Has been involuntarily hospitalized or committed to a mental health or substance abuse treatment facility by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. (This prohibition does not apply when a person is admitted for treatment voluntarily or when a person is only hospitalized for short-term observation without longer-term commitment or court-ordered treatment.)8
Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the US under a nonimmigrant visa
Has been dishonorably discharged from the US Armed Forces
Has renounced their US citizenship
Is subject to an active court order restraining them from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, their child, or a child of a partner, or from engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence9 (For more detailed information on firearm restrictions—and gaps—related to domestic violence, see our summary on Domestic Violence and Firearms).

[dunefan]

Getting back to the topic, if Trump's lawyers have something, it's damn time to put up!

LOL.  I'm beginning to think all the talk has been just that.  GA Senate races are all that are left to help us keep our rights.

[P1tchblack]

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does the left do?  They "infringe" as they DENY citizens the RIGHT to "bear arms".

Limitations on "bearing" arms have been around for hundreds of years.  Even in the infancy of the west, there were laws against carrying a gun within city limits.  I'm not saying I agree with it, but the only actual difference that impacts ownership is regarding certain rifles.

Everyone has their limits.  The Constitution says "Shall not be infringed", yet there are plenty of Republicans/Conservatives/Pro-gun people who will gladly allow the government to infringe on their rights, as long as they don't infringe on my rights.  An example is felons that are now free.  The most pro-2nd Amendment people here are more than happy to allow the government to infringe on the rights those people because, well, they're convicted violent offenders who have forfeited their rights by breaking laws.

Scarrrrrrrrrrrry?  Please, that is nonsense.   Try living in the real world.   FIFY

Convicted offenders lose the majority of their rights when they are incarcerated.  Once they have done their time and paid their debt to society, there is no basis for denying rights.

You don't make laws....you may have opinion but its not worth much.  I'll give you the laws as written by law makers elected by majority of the people.  You can squawk all you wish but means zero.  Background checks are a purpose.  Why give someone a gun who has killed previous?

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAW
Federal law establishes a baseline national standard regarding the criteria that make people ineligible to acquire and possess firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, generally prohibits the sale to, and possession of firearms by, a person who:

Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for:
A federal crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (typically a felony)
A state crime that is not classified as a misdemeanor and is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year
A state crime that is classified as a misdemeanor under state law and is punishable by more than two years imprisonment3
Is a fugitive from justice4
Is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”5
Though certain states have legalized the use of medical and recreational marijuana, it remains illegal under federal law. Therefore, ATF considers people who use marijuana legally under state law unlawful users of a controlled substance.6
Is underage (For additional information about federal age restrictions for the purchase and possession of firearms, see our page on the Minimum Age to Purchase and Possess Firearms.)
Has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to self or others, or to “lack[] the mental capacity to contract or manage [their] own affairs,” as a result of their mental condition or illness (This prohibition also expressly applies when a person has been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty of a crime due to mental incapacity)7
Has been involuntarily hospitalized or committed to a mental health or substance abuse treatment facility by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. (This prohibition does not apply when a person is admitted for treatment voluntarily or when a person is only hospitalized for short-term observation without longer-term commitment or court-ordered treatment.)8
Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the US under a nonimmigrant visa
Has been dishonorably discharged from the US Armed Forces
Has renounced their US citizenship
Is subject to an active court order restraining them from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, their child, or a child of a partner, or from engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence9 (For more detailed information on firearm restrictions—and gaps—related to domestic violence, see our summary on Domestic Violence and Firearms).

The fact that laws exist doesn't mean they should exist or should be deemed Constitutional.  Red Flag laws are another example.

[ScarletHayes]

Getting back to the topic, if Trump's lawyers have something, it's damn time to put up!

Why is that standard so one sided?  Still waiting on that Russian collusion evidence.  No put up or shut up rants from the media in that.  Nothing.  In fact, they still push it!  

Sidney, take your time and get your Iâ€s dotted and your Tâ€s crossed.  If youâ€ve, out of nowhere, suddenly gone nuts then go build bird houses with Biden.  Until then do your job as methodically and thorough as you see fit

[Jacketbuckeye]

Getting back to the topic, if Trump's lawyers have something, it's damn time to put up!

LOL.  I'm beginning to think all the talk has been just that.  GA Senate races are all that are left to help us keep our rights.

And the way that Republicans are eating their own it may be even closer than it should be. Early voting starts December 14th!

[zigbee]

Limitations on "bearing" arms have been around for hundreds of years.  Even in the infancy of the west, there were laws against carrying a gun within city limits.  I'm not saying I agree with it, but the only actual difference that impacts ownership is regarding certain rifles.

Everyone has their limits.  The Constitution says "Shall not be infringed", yet there are plenty of Republicans/Conservatives/Pro-gun people who will gladly allow the government to infringe on their rights, as long as they don't infringe on my rights.  An example is felons that are now free.  The most pro-2nd Amendment people here are more than happy to allow the government to infringe on the rights those people because, well, they're convicted violent offenders who have forfeited their rights by breaking laws.

Scarrrrrrrrrrrry?  Please, that is nonsense.   Try living in the real world.   FIFY

Convicted offenders lose the majority of their rights when they are incarcerated.  Once they have done their time and paid their debt to society, there is no basis for denying rights.

You don't make laws....you may have opinion but its not worth much.  I'll give you the laws as written by law makers elected by majority of the people.  You can squawk all you wish but means zero.  Background checks are a purpose.  Why give someone a gun who has killed previous?

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAW
Federal law establishes a baseline national standard regarding the criteria that make people ineligible to acquire and possess firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, generally prohibits the sale to, and possession of firearms by, a person who:

Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for:
A federal crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (typically a felony)
A state crime that is not classified as a misdemeanor and is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year
A state crime that is classified as a misdemeanor under state law and is punishable by more than two years imprisonment3
Is a fugitive from justice4
Is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”5
Though certain states have legalized the use of medical and recreational marijuana, it remains illegal under federal law. Therefore, ATF considers people who use marijuana legally under state law unlawful users of a controlled substance.6
Is underage (For additional information about federal age restrictions for the purchase and possession of firearms, see our page on the Minimum Age to Purchase and Possess Firearms.)
Has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to self or others, or to “lack[] the mental capacity to contract or manage [their] own affairs,” as a result of their mental condition or illness (This prohibition also expressly applies when a person has been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty of a crime due to mental incapacity)7
Has been involuntarily hospitalized or committed to a mental health or substance abuse treatment facility by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. (This prohibition does not apply when a person is admitted for treatment voluntarily or when a person is only hospitalized for short-term observation without longer-term commitment or court-ordered treatment.)8
Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the US under a nonimmigrant visa
Has been dishonorably discharged from the US Armed Forces
Has renounced their US citizenship
Is subject to an active court order restraining them from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, their child, or a child of a partner, or from engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence9 (For more detailed information on firearm restrictions—and gaps—related to domestic violence, see our summary on Domestic Violence and Firearms).

The fact that laws exist doesn't mean they should exist or should be deemed Constitutional.  Red Flag laws are another example.

Really?  That is again OPINION.  WHY don't link where laws should not exist but do?   And pulling up some ancient law where a woman can't drive on a Sunday is pathetic and a straw man.    People elect legislators and they make laws.  Your opinion carries no water in the least.  It's just an opinion.    The constitution in article ONE designates the legislature of the United States to make all federal law I provided.  That is constitutional.  You can wiggle your way to 10 pages of nonsense which is your way of trying to win an argument if you wish but all you have is opinion.   Not worth much.  I gave you laws which are constitutional.

[K9Buck]

Getting back to the topic, if Trump's lawyers have something, it's damn time to put up!

Why is that standard so one sided?  Still waiting on that Russian collusion evidence.  No put up or shut up rants from the media in that.  Nothing.  In fact, they still push it!  

Sidney, take your time and get your Iâ€s dotted and your Tâ€s crossed.  If youâ€ve, out of nowhere, suddenly gone nuts then go build bird houses with Biden.  Until then do your job as methodically and thorough as you see fit

It's been three weeks.  Can they throw us a bone?

[K9Buck]

Gas is under $2 a gallon in central Florida. Can we move up the inauguration so that we can ban fracking and drilling in order to get gas up to $4 a gallon? It sucks having extra spending money.

[Jacketbuckeye]

Gas is under $2 a gallon in central Florida. Can we move up the inauguration so that we can ban fracking and drilling in order to get gas up to $4 a gallon? It sucks having extra spending money.

You do realize new drilling and fracking has basically ground to a halt? And that has nothing to do with any legal actions? You do know that this is entirely a demand-side shock, right? We could open up the Alaskan wilderness tomorrow, and no one would want to build a drill?