• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OK, this threat to the 4A is getting dangerous.

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
All one need do to invalidate DNA evidence in most cases is simply state one has been at the location the DNA was found ie ,home, car , etc . Unless it can be proven one wasn't ever there ,a tall order, DNA is useless as a prosecution tool.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,724
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
All one need do to invalidate DNA evidence in most cases is simply state one has been at the location the DNA was found ie ,home, car , etc . Unless it can be proven one wasn't ever there ,a tall order, DNA is useless as a prosecution tool.
Correct. Proving a case based on DNA only can be very very difficult. It is only one piece of evidence. With that said, if I'm found suspiciously dead in my office and eye95's DNA is found, he will be going to the big house.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
1. I have said or done nothing to indicate I would kill you. I don’t like you. I think you don’t contribute to discussions as much as you detract from them. But only a warped mind would think that anyone would kill over such.

2. Stating the way things OUGHT to be does not logically require citing cases. Stating the way things are (or trying to convince others that one is a lawyer) does.

Oh, yeah, and that was another jerk post from you. Grow up.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,724
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
1. I have said or done nothing to indicate I would kill you. I don’t like you. I think you don’t contribute to discussions as much as you detract from them. But only a warped mind would think that anyone would kill over such.

2. Stating the way things OUGHT to be does not logically require citing cases. Stating the way things are (or trying to convince others that one is a lawyer) does.

Oh, yeah, and that was another jerk post from you. Grow up.
I need to stock-up on AA batteries.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
1. I have said or done nothing to indicate I would kill you. I don’t like you. I think you don’t contribute to discussions as much as you detract from them. But only a warped mind would think that anyone would kill over such.

2. Stating the way things OUGHT to be does not logically require citing cases. Stating the way things are (or trying to convince others that one is a lawyer) does.

Oh, yeah, and that was another jerk post from you. Grow up.

You haven't said anything.

As far as done anything you may well have a voodoo doll of COL you stick needles in . ROFL .
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
Eye95 you truly have audacity to challenge this member’s veracity ~ really?

You are truly unbelievable eye95, you don’t know jack squat about this new member’s personal history/background and yet you just basically called them a liar, of course you prefaced your liar statement with the caveat your not a lawyer!

What are you talking about? Nothing in what he said questioned the member's veracity. He just talked about what it takes to have standing to sue.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,174
Location
here nc
Question:
FreedomVA - Are you saying that you have standing?

Members response:
Yes and i will do all i can to fight for my standing even if i lose

Challenging the veracity of the response
IANAL, but I believe that thinking you possibly might be wronged sometime does not give you standing to sue.


What are you talking about? Nothing in what he said questioned the member's veracity. He just talked about what it takes to have standing to sue.

lets review again... 'do you' question asked, 'Yes' was the answer, and then veracity challenged...'does not give you standing'!

sorry, that is a challenge to the veracity of the individual without any iota of background knowledge of the members perception of standing or background as to why they believe they have standing!

with the utmost respect Mr. Pierce, if you tell me you have standing, I sure wouldn't challenge your veracity and without hesitation state, 'does not give you standing'!

now I might subtly ask could you explain why you believe you have standing to assure we are on the same legal definition, but not blatantly blurt out 'does not give you standing'.

I certainly hope this clears up my discourse on calling out one member for doubting another's veracity!
 
Last edited:

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
591
Location
FreedomVA
Guys, i know we all have our own difference of opinions, but as Rodney King asked "Can't we all get along?" In the end, all of us on this forum are fighting for the same cause. I welcome difference of opinions from different POV, i believe thats how we learn from each other. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
Guys, i know we all have our own difference of opinions, but as Rodney King asked "Can't we all get along?" In the end, all of us on this forum are fighting for the same cause. Thank you and have a wonderful day.

You hit the nail square my friend.
Trouble is we aren't fighting for the same goal.
Some are fighting to repeal all gun regulations as consistent with the 2a and the right it projects.

Others want to carry themselves but also want to pick and choose who among the citizenry to strip the RTKABA from.

Others think mandatory training is not infringement.

That is our problem. The RTKABA is clearly protected by the 2a as being subject to no interference.

But unlike anti gunners who are of one mind , we have gun owners who truely believe they know more than the founders concerning what they wrote in the 2a and in their individual writings .

That is why anti gun forces still have a voice.

Had gun owners banned together as one voice the anti gun forces would have been relegated to irrelevantcy long ago.
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
591
Location
FreedomVA
Ghost1958, I hear you loud and clear, i am with you. But, i also believe when we ridicule another members, we are pushing away much needed allies to our cause. I rather absorbed as much info i can from another member's and screen out what i need and discard what i don't. Everyone should have the right to express their opinion even if i don't agree with the logic.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,724
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Ghost1958, I hear you loud and clear, i am with you. But, i also believe when we ridicule another members, we are pushing away much needed allies to our cause. I rather absorbed as much info i can from another member's and screen out what i need and discard what i don't. Everyone should have the right to express their opinion even if i don't agree with the logic.
But, opinions need to have substance.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,174
Location
here nc
FreedomVA...just look at the recent debacles
  1. TX to get open carry - affected the nation’s firearm carrying citizens.
  2. WA & OR plight from “citizens initiative” [read well funded single entities pushing their agenda].

There is no sole enity heading up the push nor controlling the local grassroots who use it as a personal profit center or ‘look at me’ device.
 
Top