Guns and Violence, A Logical Perspective

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

place the blame for crime rates on immigrants - which is not the case, as studies have shown that they are less likely to commit crimes, if only so as not to draw attention to themselves.

Keep in mind those studies don't count those that have obtained their citizenship or have various other statuses. Still they are foreign from this country and not born here is what I am arguing. So this is not here nor there.

Megan's Law

Specifically?

If you don't go through - and successfully complete - relevant programmes, in my view. you shouldn't be released.

There are still quite a few instances of criminals repeating the same or similar crimes and going through multiple program per original infraction. I think people are too far gone and simply should be executed without parole or appeal after their third strike at a different date and time.

Have you enquired into why the system flagged you?

Multiple Inquiries without so much as a response. If the government is so incompetent I don't think they should have a say who gets which firearms. the government telling me that I am a prohibited person in order to possess a firearm when I have been teaching and selling firearms as well as carrying them legally for decades is ridiculous and insulting. Likewise when I run the federally mandated check on government employees such as police officers and them failing on occasion is ridiculous as well. It illustrates perfectly why the government shouldn't be in charge of this.

I understand your concerns, and frustration, with both NICS, and your state's own ICS, nevertheless wouldn't this be better addressed through fixing those systems?

System was implemented by Biden in 94. Many decades of the same system without addressing the shortcomings of said system. I have no other conclusion other than political harassment of gun owners. The system also denies you transfer even though you aren't under legal prohibitive status. For example a customer told me their overturn was successful after a tax audit on the private individual's business in another state prevented him from transferring a firearm. This raises many red flags and frankly it simply pisses me off and encourages people to simply go around this silly system. If you can simply make up or prohibit a transfer for a non legal reason then all the more reason not to trust the government with such things. You do so by the book and no more period.

Given that you need such systems in place to tell if someone is "safe", if you don't know whether someone is legitimate or not, how can you sell them a gun?

The law is supposed to be an assumption of innocence not guilt. It isn't my job nor should it be to prove someone essentially innocent. It would be up to the police to make an arrest of someone in violation of the law not a private citizen.

Wouldn't this result in your losing not just your FFL but also possibly your other gun-related licences?

For doing what exactly? The Federal Firearm's Licensee is held with the company not the individual and not through an individual contractor. I wouldn't lose an FFL because I am required to have one working for an FFL. I am not selling firearms the company is.

One remote possibility of losing any type of license would be losing a carry permit to knowingly sell to a prohibited person defined by federal law. A background check denial doesn't prove that a person is of prohibitive status. It means the state deems them so it doesn't prove anything as I already outlined with my problem with it.

The criminal record database is not held current nor are records commonly transferred between states. (again Biden the implementer had decades to fix this and yet did nothing the only change is to the form and mostly for bad intentions such as establishing a firearms registry which is federally prohibited).

It reminds me of news repost I saw of a FFL in NC who, when Obama was elected, gave guns to anyone who entered his gun store. In my view, this was not just negligent but criminally so.

I don't think you know how the law works. Post this incident I think you massively misrepresented it.

Again, this would be in breach of your duties as a FFL, with legal consequences.

Non NFA items have NO federal requirement to be registered. How is this a violation of an FFL that I don't even hold or maintain? Don't make statements when you have NO clue about the law. My state DOES NOT have firearms registries for NONNFA items. Read and understand the law before you make false statements.

By whom?

Anyone that would steal firearms. Who would benefit from open knowledge of who held which firearms gee I wonder?

That's what civics, political engagement, and democracy are for, and about.

Yes I argued against the trust of these specific to incompetence I cited earlier not the WHOLE of government. DMV, NICS, NFA etc all have their examples of being incompetent/corrupt. This is what I am referring to.

No state condones treason - any state that does, negates its very right to exist.

That is nevertheless the reason behind the second amendment. The context of when it was written was to maintain power to the people not under the command of the government. Even the founder's recognized that they could be tyrannical and thus specifically safeguarded those rights to challenge government.

Armed and lethal force against police has been used in the Battle of Athens after world war 2. It has been used against government agents and will be used again.

It's ironic that Americans talk about "Big Gubmint" but fail to see that there are three dangerous "Bigs" - Big Government, Big Corporation, and Big Citizen.

I also see great irony. What I advocate for would reduce the impact of corporations in order to make deals with government as the government wouldn't hold enough power for Corporate Socialism for one and secondly the political process would be far more dependent on representing yourself and less steps. This is Conservatism and Libertarianism in spades - though this is off topic.

Yours,
The Gun Nerd.

 

[Sparhafoc]

No I understand perfectly. I am for the escalation of power against criminals that is the point.

The point therefore being that the criminals in turn must escalate their power relative to you. Thus you live in a nation where you fear for your safety sufficiently that you literally wear protective armor against being shot. That's not normal. That's not how the world has to be.

That depends on reasons OTHER than firearms. Also that depends on the country as some are more dangerous with more gun controls.

No, it depends on reasons INCLUDING firearms, their availability, and whether or not the culture fetishes guns and gun violence.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

point therefore being that the criminals in turn must escalate their power relative to you. Thus you live in a nation where you fear for your safety sufficiently that you literally wear protective armor against being shot.

That would still be the case even if you completely discounted firearms assuming you couldn't defend yourself with lethal force. The violent crime rates are significantly different. And no I don't live in fear because I am prepared and derive enjoyment from training and my hobby and my career. Post your homicide statistics and compare them to ours. Then try to make the same argument. Keep in mind these are the most recent and they are behind by almost 2 years.

No, it depends on reasons INCLUDING firearms, their availability, and whether or not the culture fetishes guns and gun violence.

No, it primarily has to do with intent and the intelligence and the social status of the people making those decisions. You really think it means I am going to commit a crime because I "fetishize firearms"? Quite the opposite I don't have a criminal record. Although the NICS mistreating me certainly gives incentive not to be law abiding anymore.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The law is supposed to be an assumption of innocence not guilt. It isn't my job nor should it be to prove someone essentially innocent.

The presumption of innocence has exactly no bearing on this issue. The presumption of innocence applies only to those accused of crimes, and has no bearing on background checks and the likes for guns. You're conflating entirely different and unconnected areas of the law here (where have we seen spurious connections before..?)

The presumption of innocence is a function of protected rights curtailing and constraining the governments actions toward its citizens. It has no bearing whatsoever on a government's right to regulate businesses and their products to reduce potential risk to the public and society at large, which includes requiring you, the retailer, to ensure that you're selling responsibly. It's the same reason we have construction codes and building regulations.

It's the responsibility of the citizen not to break the law (except where such law is immoral, in which case it's a duty to break it), and the government has every right to impose regulations on you, the retailer, to make it difficult for those the law deems dangerous to obtain weapons that would make them more immediately dangerous.

The presumption of innocence also doesn't apply to your transaction with ta customer, because you're not the government.

So, we've crossed law and logic off the list. Any other topics of howling incompetence you'd like to hold forth on?

 

[Deleted member 619]

whether or not the culture fetishes guns and gun violence.

Exhibit A.

 

[Sparhafoc]

That would still be the case even if you completely discounted firearms assuming you couldn't defend yourself with lethal force.

Its like you're having a conversation with someone else who's saying all these things.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

The presumption of innocence applies only to those accused of crimes, and has no bearing on background checks and the likes for guns.

Background checks operate under the condition that you DON'T transfer the firearm until you prove the individual NOT to have a criminal record which is no different than an accusal functionally. In either way you are operating on an assumption of guilt.

It's the responsibility of the citizen not to break the law (except where such law is immoral, in which case it's a duty to break it),

Ok what about the fact as an FFL clerk I have been denied firearms transfers repeatedly? On a denial there is no citation as to why you were denied. That is immoral for the government to lie to about your status and deny you a firearms transfer. It doesn't really stop me anyway as legally speaking you can go out privately here legally. All it does is explain why one should not grant power to the government to determine such things when they are so incompetent.

The presumption of innocence also doesn't apply to your transaction with ta customer, because you're not the government.

Except the background check is handled by the government not the FFL clerk sending them the information. It is directly because of the government that background checks are run via the NICS or the state branch of the FBI.

Exhibit A.

Again me liking firearms has produced exactly fuck all violent crime. For that argument to work the average gun "liker" or otherwise looking up to firearms fetishizing them should have committed a crime which is not the case. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Its like you're having a conversation with someone else who's saying all these things.

point therefore being that the criminals in turn must escalate their power relative to you.

Yes like I argued earlier that happens regardless as force is used against criminals if you use a weapon then they use weapons regardless of type. A lot of times they attack with weapons and the victim has no weapon therefore your argument stinks.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Yep. It doesn't get any more intelligent with more words. Still not worth any further engagement. Bye.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Keep in mind those studies don't count those that have obtained their citizenship or have various other statuses. Still they are foreign from this country and not born here is what I am arguing. So this is not here nor there.

It appears you feel that immigrants are inherently more violent than those born in the US!?

Specifically?

I'm not sure (for) what you are asking here.

My suggestion was that, if those convicted of crimes had to complete appropriate programmes, this would help reduce recidivism...

There are still quite a few instances of criminals repeating the same or similar crimes and going through multiple program per original infraction.

... Which suggests that their issues are more deep-seated, explaining why the programmes didn't work.

If someone, having gone through relevant programmes, repeats on being released for the first time, then they should be put In a psychiatric institution where the cause of their issues can be identified, and addressed.

Simply putting them back in prison won't resolve this. A psych evaluation should have picked up their likelihood of having deeper issues than a prison programme could address.

I think people are too far gone and simply should be executed without parole or appeal after their third strike at a different date and time.

As a humanist, who believes in people, I disagree with the death penalty.

It has no effect on violent crime as a deterrent, so should be terminated.

As I see it, there are two possibilities when someone commits a crime - either the person can change, or they can't.

Prison is for the former, psychiatric institutions for the latter.

If this means that someone spends the rest of their life in a psychiatric institution, then - as sad as that may be - so be it. However, "never say never", as they say: if a medical breakthrough is made that would cure the person, then they should be released.

With regards to those in prison, you again have two possibilities: they are either willing or unwilling to change.

Ideally, someone who's able and willing to change is what one wants.

If they are able but unwilling to change, then they stay in prison until they do - as I said earlier.

Multiple Inquiries without so much as a response. If the government is so incompetent I don't think they should have a say who gets which firearms. the government telling me that I am a prohibited person in order to possess a firearm when I have been teaching and selling firearms as well as carrying them legally for decades is ridiculous and insulting. Likewise when I run the federally mandated check on government employees such as police officers and them failing on occasion is ridiculous as well. It illustrates perfectly why the government shouldn't be in charge of this.

It's been some years since I read up on this - Brian Miller's article makes for a interesting read.

As he notes, there's an appeal process, which may be expensive and awkward for the individual. Perhaps one's employer could do so - particularly as they face legal consequences for hiring employees to sell weapons. Or, even better, whatever organisation representing FLLs/gun stores could do so on behalf of employees of its member gun stores.

This would be the principle of democracy - collective bargaining - in action.

My point being, if no one bothers to fix - or even attempt to fix - the system, then it's not going to work.

If the government isn't in charge - or involved as one of the stakeholders - who should be in charge of this?

System was implemented by Biden in 94. Many decades of the same system without addressing the shortcomings of said system. I have no other conclusion other than political harassment of gun owners. The system also denies you transfer even though you aren't under legal prohibitive status. For example a customer told me their overturn was successful after a tax audit on the private individual's business in another state prevented him from transferring a firearm. This raises many red flags and frankly it simply pisses me off and encourages people to simply go around this silly system. If you can simply make up or prohibit a transfer for a non legal reason then all the more reason not to trust the government with such things. You do so by the book and no more period.

With all due respect, you seem to have a thing about Biden.

He wasn't the instigator, nor solely responsible for it, then or since. The US had a Republican government shortly afterwards, with majorities in Congress, yet they didn't address the issues with it.

Things only change/improve if there is sufficient and consistent pressure to do so, as I suggest above.

The law is supposed to be an assumption of innocence not guilt. It isn't my job nor should it be to prove someone essentially innocent. It would be up to the police to make an arrest of someone in violation of the law not a private citizen.

Hack's addressed this above but I'd like to add my own concerns.

As America is litigious, and increasingly so, should the state, victim of a shooting and/or their family - particularly if the victim dies - sues your employer, do you really think they'll put up their hand and say "Our bad!" or do you think they'll blame it on the proverbial "rogue employee"? You.

As someone who's selling guns, you should be aware that you have a civic duty of care to the community in which you work and/or live to protect them from those who may misuse the guns you sell.

You are effectively on the front line in doing so. If you - or any other legal gun seller - fails in that duty, then you are liable.

If a gun you sold - despite the purchaser being flagged - was used in a crime, it comes down to you.

This is why it's so important to ensure that everything is done to resolve issues with both every state's and the NICS systems.

For doing what exactly? The Federal Firearm's Licensee is held with the company not the individual and not through an individual contractor. I wouldn't lose an FFL because I am required to have one working for an FFL. I am not selling firearms the company is.

Again, with all due respect, that's a distinction without a difference.

As I pointed out above, you're the one who'd face the consequences, not your employer.

One remote possibility of losing any type of license would be losing a carry permit to knowingly sell to a prohibited person defined by federal law. A background check denial doesn't prove that a person is of prohibitive status. It means the state deems them so it doesn't prove anything as I already outlined with my problem with it.

The criminal record database is not held current nor are records commonly transferred between states. (again Biden the implementer had decades to fix this and yet did nothing the only change is to the form and mostly for bad intentions such as establishing a firearms registry which is federally prohibited).

But it's the only thing you have to determine if someone is prohibited from buying a weapon.

And, again, Biden isn't the only person responsible for not addressing the issues with it. It also needs pressure from the public to encourage/force changes to the system.

I don't think you know how the law works. Post this incident I think you massively misrepresented it.

As I saw this years ago, I didn't think I'd be able to find it, and - despite various searches featuring "North Carolina gun store gives guns to customers without background checks", I have been unable to find it. I did find this article - but I doubt you'd put much store by The Trace.

Non NFA items have NO federal requirement to be registered. How is this a violation of an FFL that I don't even hold or maintain? Don't make statements when you have NO clue about the law. My state DOES NOT have firearms registries for NONNFA items. Read and understand the law before you make false statements.

As there are differences in how the law is applied depending on which state you're in - as Miller's article indicates - and you've now indicated that you're in a state that doesn't keep such a registry, that would explain my misunderstanding.

Anyone that would steal firearms. Who would benefit from open knowledge of who held which firearms gee I wonder?

I wouldn't have thought that this would be available to the average member of the public, so I'm not sure why you'd expect burglars to be turning up at gun-owners' homes.

Yes I argued against the trust of these specific to incompetence I cited earlier not the WHOLE of government. DMV, NICS, NFA etc all have their examples of being incompetent/corrupt. This is what I am referring to.

Assuming you answered my earlier question, you don't need to repeat it but just In case: if not the government then who should be in charge of NICS?

That is nevertheless the reason behind the second amendment. The context of when it was written was to maintain power to the people not under the command of the government. Even the founder's recognized that they could be tyrannical and thus specifically safeguarded those rights to challenge government.

Agreed, however, since then the state has accrued ever more power to itself, if only to deal with ever more complex threats in the world.

I doubt if "the people" could cope with the modern world without the structure of the US state as it is today.

Armed and lethal force against police has been used in the Battle of Athens after world war 2. It has been used against government agents and will be used again.

And therein lies a problem.

It leaves America on the knife-edge of becoming a failed state - as the world and his dog witnessed on Jan 6.

That like-minded individuals can decide that "enough is enough", even if he basis for that is a supposed "insider" who stirred up gullible Americans to storm the Capitol.

None of them seem to have asked themselves, "How do we even know if this guy is an American?". Not to spread another conspiracy theory but given all the talk of Russian interference in the US elections, what's the probability that it was a foreign agent behind the QAnon conspiracy?

I also see great irony. What I advocate for would reduce the impact of corporations in order to make deals with government as the government wouldn't hold enough power for Corporate Socialism for one and secondly the political process would be far more dependent on representing yourself and less steps. This is Conservatism and Libertarianism in spades - though this is off topic.

The problem with pure(r) democracy is popularism, and fascism, that's why America chose to be a republic, as it incorporates checks and balances - but only if they are acted upon.

Yours,
The Gun Nerd.

I trust that you understand nothing we say is personal against you - we (Hack and I, in particular) are expressing our concerns at your apparent readiness to sell guns to people on a 2A rights basis regardless of their being flagged by a clunky NICS system.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Yo,

It appears you feel that immigrants are inherently more violent than those born in the US!?

Depends where they are from specifically. If they are from the third world then all the higher the likelihood.

My suggestion was that, if those convicted of crimes had to complete appropriate programmes, this would help reduce recidivism...

How many programs should they complete before deciding such programs are totally ineffective provided the consideration of repeat crime of same or similar crime on the part of the convicted?

should be put In a psychiatric institution where the cause of their issues can be identified, and addressed.

What if even under treatment they are still unstable? It would mean they are unfixable and not able to remain in society. What then?

It has no effect on violent crime as a deterrent, so should be terminated.

That is highly contested through the means of which to get a death penalty. The means usually requires great cost in order to exercise the appeals process against the death penalty. I already suggested to waive the death penalty in cases where repeat convictions for heinous crimes would be stripped entirely.

If they are able but unwilling to change, then they stay in prison until they do - as I said earlier.

This is already the case. The issue with other citing the high incarceration rate of the U.S.. People don't care about committing serious crimes as they will never be full citizens again. There is no way out for people with gang affiliations for example. You get stuck in prison and cannot get away from those affiliated with the gang and so you either cooperate or die.

My way is better because you literally break down the "chain of the command" of such organized crime in this way and get rid of the permanently mentally defective.

You would also basically get rid of genetic material used to congregate more mental illness. I really blame Reagan for the defunding of mental asylums and frankly because of him releasing them into general population is why I see crazy people doing crazy things such as smacking the ground while toothless and saying incoherent things at offramps for example. Another possible reason beyond opiate and meth as to why someone charged me with a knife at 3 am.

He wasn't the instigator, nor solely responsible for it, then or since.

No he was. He continues to instigate the propagation of "universal background checks" even though he is aware of their shortcomings and from his speeches I see no action attempting to address this or even to drive awareness to this. With Biden's support in help writing it, the law would be significantly worse as it would be used and implemented on more firearm related items. The only reason it is not worse and used to Nickle and dime people out of being able to afford to afford to shoot is because of the NRA.

The US had a Republican government shortly afterwards, with majorities in Congress, yet they didn't address the issues with it.

They actually did attempt to remove the system but were unable to. It wasn't the Republicans responsibility for the corrupt and incompetent system but they did attempt to remove it. The best they were allowed to do was change the language on the form 4473 which generally isn't even seen by a government agency in terms of information collected - moot.

As America is litigious, and increasingly so, should the state, victim of a shooting and/or their family - particularly if the victim dies - sues your employer, do you really think they'll put up their hand and say "Our bad!" or do you think they'll blame it on the proverbial "rogue employee"? You.

Considering my determination has nothing to do with a transfer post an approval from NICS no the employer would blame NICS entirely - rightly so. I have done everything I am required to do in that example.

Why? Because the NICS has the say so in order to grant transfers legally. The only thing an FFL clerk can do is refuse service to someone with reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or the prospective buyer shows reasonable suspicion that they are of prohibitive status.

Ex: If they reek of weed and other employees can smell it then if you attempt to sell to said person and are made aware of it then you are on the hook for attempting transfer firearm to said user of an illegal substance.

Ex: if the prospective buyer mentions a current criminal conviction or pending warrant things of this nature then obviously don't transfer.

As someone who's selling guns, you should be aware that you have a civic duty of care to the community in which you work and/or live to protect them from those who may misuse the guns you sell.

I would have to generally disagree as I cannot guarantee that someone doesn't have the intent to commit a crime with said object. I am under no obligation for any of the guns I sell except in the conditions above for selling a firearm to anyone. What they do with that firearm is their problem as individuals are responsible for their own actions. I am not in possession of said object therefore I have no responsibility what is done with it.

If a gun you sold - despite the purchaser being flagged - was used in a crime, it comes down to you.

That really depends on specifics. One could be denied like in my case. Used in a crime and could be the case the guy that committed the crime had no prior criminal record despite being flagged by NICS.

Again, with all due respect, that's a distinction without a difference.

As I pointed out above, you're the one who'd face the consequences, not your employer.

Unless clarified specifics generally no - not true.

And, again, Biden isn't the only person responsible for not addressing the issues with it. It also needs pressure from the public to encourage/force changes to the system.

The gun control debate has been ongoing for how many decades in the U.S..? Gun Control now! Reduce mass shootings and gun crime in general.

The public has already expressed these things and it isn't up to them to bring up specifically how. That is the job of the career politician to know how to go about it and what possibly could be done about it. That is their literal job. They continue to fail at their job and not fix things routinely brought up.

The government has known about the shortcomings of NICS for decades and yet no change on it. Why should I expect change given it has been implemented relatively unchanged for literally all of my life? What sane person what non gullible person would believe this?

This is why he general attitude of Americans are basically screw it I'll risk getting caught doing something illegal because the system is broken without a fix in sight. Years and years with the example of people not being prosecute for example to the fullest extent of the law or at all depending on the law is commonplace.

What sane person, what non gullible person would believe in positive change without arbitrary measures being implemented for security theatre (ATF classifications and import point system)?

I did find this article - but I doubt you'd put much store by The Trace.

This article doesn't show how stores were "fudging records" as my FFL does alter form 4473s in order to correct via ATF guidelines. The source is nebulous and claims illegal action yet there isn't any specifics. The devil is in the details. It cites one dealer in violation that legitimately sounds criminal but again it doesn't explain how the forms are being altered which is key in determining if they were illegally altered or not.

I am highly skeptical.

you've now indicated that you're in a state that doesn't keep such a registry, that would explain my misunderstanding.

This would be the rule and NOT the exception. Majority of states do NOT have registries for NON NFA items as federally it is prohibited to do so in order to prevent gun confiscation under Reagan ironically part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I wouldn't have thought that this would be available to the average member of the public, so I'm not sure why you'd expect burglars to be turning up at gun-owners' homes.

My point is the registries that were previously made led to the government helping criminals know which homes to target leading to more firearms being stolen. It is why such information shouldn't be public recorded or consolidated whatsoever.

None of them seem to have asked themselves, "How do we even know if this guy is an American?". Not to spread another conspiracy theory but given all the talk of Russian interference in the US elections, what's the probability that it was a foreign agent behind the QAnon conspiracy?

Ah but you fail to see the positive. The vast majority of Trump's followers didn't do anything stupid. They didn't believe what he was saying which means they do hold critical thinking skills. It means they can look at Trump and not blindly follow literally whatever he is saying. It still means the consideration of people and what a statement being true is still contested even by his followers. I myself voted for Trump twice. It still doesn't change the fact the guy lacks tact and in some examples is an asshole.

Assuming you answered my earlier question, you don't need to repeat it but just In case: if not the government then who should be in charge of NICS?

I don't think NICS should exist as in any system I can think of it would require holding documents in order to grant access to criminal records or other records that have personal identifiable information in order to determine a denial. It would mean keeping records of NICS which is ILLEGAL under the GCA of keeping a registry. I am for the full abolishment of the background check system and simply granting more ability to deny prospective buyers on legal suspicion.

I have already personally experienced those with active warrants on them coming to my work in order to purchase firearms. A background check wasn't even needed to be ran because of facial recognition software and a detective actively attempting to purchase his firearm from the counter help. The smell of weed led attention to the fourth time conviction felon for murder and felonies relating to drugs and other violent crime.

Two units were dispatched and other weapons and drugs were found when the suspects vehicles were searched. I highly doubt they got any serious time in prison as even then I think they qualified for parole which technically if my system were implemented that guy wouldn't even be alive to commit further crimes.

I doubt if "the people" could cope with the modern world without the structure of the US state as it is today.

I am not in favor of dismantling the U.S. government as a whole.

I am definitely in favor of trimming the hedges so to speak.

No more Corporate Socialism for well established businesses in order for example tax dollars to fund private jet fleets and the like. That is egregious. Also I wouldn't want the U.S. to give out foreign aid. Fix your own house before looking to others. It would definitely cut down on costs to operate and make it possible for a surplus in order to get out of debt. Also it would mean scaling back laws that keep manufacturing abroad. I'm tired of cheap Chinese nonsense that doesn't work as intended and I am certainly not for the U.S. to be reliant in any significant way to China for anything. Quality of life would increase I would imagine too. This is offtopic though.

The problem with pure(r) democracy is popularism, and fascism, that's why America chose to be a republic, as it incorporates checks and balances - but only if they are acted upon.

What does that have to do with Corporate Socialism with Corporations dictating law to the government?

we (Hack and I, in particular) are expressing our concerns at your apparent readiness to sell guns to people on a 2A rights basis regardless of their being flagged by a clunky NICS system.

Frankly Hack and Slash is a dickhead and simply wouldn't leave AD homs out of the argument so I ignored him. If you aren't going to argue semi concisely then I have no interest in the conversation.

Well I do support the abolishment of the NFA and the NICS as they are highly corrupt and incompetent ventures. 16 months to get a suppressor and I have to pay 200 dollars tax? The ATF classification of pistols, rifles and shotguns. ATF import system a set of rules to get classification in regards to Saturday Night Specials when locally produced hi points are like 150 makes no sense - Ridiculous.

Have a better one,
The Gun Hipster

 

[Deleted member 619]

You know what? Nope.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Apologies for not getting back to you, I've been having problems connecting due to ISP issues.

Yo,

Depends where they are from specifically. If they are from the third world then all the higher the likelihood.

Although global violence has, and continues, to decline - as Pinker showed in his book, The Better Angels Of Our Nature, there is a considerable amount of violence in various countries and cities around the world.

There are a plethora of reasons for this, and neither America and/or the developed world stand better than the developing world. Indeed, it's been claimed that America shares certain similarities to the developing world. Developed countries don't appear better than the developing world - for example, in terms of the acceptance of domestic violence, Europe and Central Asia (29%) stand worse than Latin America and the Caribbean (12%). Although the homicide rate has been decreasing in the US, it's still several times higher than other developed countries, and is perceived as being more violent than the rest..

As an anthropologist, Sparhafoc would be better able to discuss how the developed and developing world compare.

My point being, I think it's dangerous to think that "foreigners are (inherently) more violent than us" - not just for you as an American but also for myself as a European.

How many programs should they complete before deciding such programs are totally ineffective provided the consideration of repeat crime of same or similar crime on the part of the convicted?

What if even under treatment they are still unstable? It would mean they are unfixable and not able to remain in society. What then?

I addressed these questions later in the previous reply.

If the person has gone through relevant programs on their first offence, and then reoffend, this would indicate that their issues are more deep-seated - hence, on their second offence, they would be sent to a psychiatric institute where their issues could be dealt with. IF their issues are due to neurological damage, assuming it could not be resolved through surgery and/or medication, then the person would - sadly - have to remain in the institution for the rest of their life, unless a medical breakthrough occurred, allowing them to be cured, and released back to society.

That is highly contested through the means of which to get a death penalty. The means usually requires great cost in order to exercise the appeals process against the death penalty.

There are two types of homicide - hot-blooded, and cold-blooded.

In the former, the proverbial "red mist" comes down where a individual "loses it", stabs/shoots the victim multiple times before "coming to". and realising what they've done.

In the latter, the perpetrator plans the murder so that they're not only not caught but not even suspected.

In either case, the death penalty is not a consideration (the former) or only acts to make the perpetrator take more care in planning the murder so that they're not caught (the latter)

It's not a deterrent, and has other negatives: racial bias, executions can't be undone, miscarriages of justice mean that all involved must live with the fact that they've brought about the death of a innocent person, extra costs of death penalty cases, etc.

There is no reason for continuing such a punishment in a civilized society.

I already suggested to waive the death penalty in cases where repeat convictions for heinous crimes would be stripped entirely.

I don't recall seeing this, and don't quite follow what you're saying here.

This is already the case. The issue with other citing the high incarceration rate of the U.S.. People don't care about committing serious crimes as they will never be full citizens again. There is no way out for people with gang affiliations for example. You get stuck in prison and cannot get away from those affiliated with the gang and so you either cooperate or die.

The sentencing in America is arbitrary where a first-time offence can earn a 99 year sentence without anyone being killed or even shot.

Mandatory minimums of 5 years for drug offences don't help either.

There are programs to divert youths from gangs and to help reduce gang violence [1][2] but these are run by or involve ex-felons and, as a result, LEAs are loathe to work with them, and their funding has been cut - even though the programs have proven effective.

My way is better because you literally break down the "chain of the command" of such organized crime in this way and get rid of the permanently mentally defective.

You would also basically get rid of genetic material used to congregate more mental illness.

This is a particularly uncaring perspective to have.

What happens if you suffer a psychiatric problem, shoot someone, and then face your own suggested solution? Would you really want that for yourself? I certainly wouldn't - as long as there's a chance I'd be cured in the future, I'd rather be in a psychiatric institute rather than summarily killed.

I really blame Reagan for the defunding of mental asylums and frankly because of him releasing them into general population is why I see crazy people doing crazy things such as smacking the ground while toothless and saying incoherent things at offramps for example. Another possible reason beyond opiate and meth as to why someone charged me with a knife at 3 am.

US mental healthcare needs to be improved and funded properly - this is a major issue in your healthcare system.

No he was. He continues to instigate the propagation of "universal background checks" even though he is aware of their shortcomings and from his speeches I see no action attempting to address this or even to drive awareness to this. With Biden's support in help writing it, the law would be significantly worse as it would be used and implemented on more firearm related items. The only reason it is not worse and used to Nickle and dime people out of being able to afford to afford to shoot is because of the NRA.

It's not down to just one person. Although, since you've blamed Reagan for the mental health problems in America, at least you're consistent.

They actually did attempt to remove the system but were unable to. It wasn't the Republicans responsibility for the corrupt and incompetent system but they did attempt to remove it. The best they were allowed to do was change the language on the form 4473 which generally isn't even seen by a government agency in terms of information collected - moot.

Getting rid of it is not the solution - various polls have consistently shown that around 90% of the American public support universal background checks.

It's the various issues in how it's implemented that need to be addressed - even if one has to fix these a piece at a time, it's worth doing. If these were fixed, then it would be workable.

As I understand it, the system currently works off arrests and/or the issuing of bench warrants rather than the outcome of such processes: if the person isn't charged and/or the charges are dropped or the person is declared innocent, these are not necessarily in the system - hence the false positives. Were these outcomes in the system, instead of arrests/warrants, then the false positives would diminish, if not disappear.

Another issue is where someone who's name happens to match someone with a record resulting in their being flagged. Were the name cross-referenced with their NI number, this would prevent such a mix-up.

Though the much touted "gun show loophole" may not be as big as some claim - 0.7% of felons claim to have bought weapons there - by doing the background checks at the entrance to the shows, it would ensure that the only people allowed in a show are law-abiding (notwithstanding the problems you and others currently are having).

These are just some of the ideas I can come up with off-the-top-of-my-head.

Considering my determination has nothing to do with a transfer post an approval from NICS no the employer would blame NICS entirely - rightly so. I have done everything I am required to do in that example.

Why? Because the NICS has the say so in order to grant transfers legally. The only thing an FFL clerk can do is refuse service to someone with reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or the prospective buyer shows reasonable suspicion that they are of prohibitive status.

Ex: If they reek of weed and other employees can smell it then if you attempt to sell to said person and are made aware of it then you are on the hook for attempting transfer firearm to said user of an illegal substance.

Ex: if the prospective buyer mentions a current criminal conviction or pending warrant things of this nature then obviously don't transfer.

I understand - but it still means that it comes down to your (and other gun sellers') ability to spot a ne'er-do-well. A properly working background check system would be better.

I would have to generally disagree as I cannot guarantee that someone doesn't have the intent to commit a crime with said object. I am under no obligation for any of the guns I sell except in the conditions above for selling a firearm to anyone. What they do with that firearm is their problem as individuals are responsible for their own actions. I am not in possession of said object therefore I have no responsibility what is done with it.

The NICS system, and others, are looking at a history of violence, and - on that basis - attempting to predict whether someone is likely to commit a gun-related crime: if they're flagged, they're likely to commit such a crime, and shouldn't be sold a gun.

It's not a crystal ball that sees the future of someone who isn't flagged or has never committed a crime in their life.

That really depends on specifics. One could be denied like in my case. Used in a crime and could be the case the guy that committed the crime had no prior criminal record despite being flagged by NICS.

I assume you're referring to a false negative?! Or have I misunderstood what you meant?

Unless clarified specifics generally no - not true.

The gun control debate has been ongoing for how many decades in the U.S..? Gun Control now! Reduce mass shootings and gun crime in general.

The public has already expressed these things and it isn't up to them to bring up specifically how. That is the job of the career politician to know how to go about it and what possibly could be done about it. That is their literal job. They continue to fail at their job and not fix things routinely brought up.

The government has known about the shortcomings of NICS for decades and yet no change on it. Why should I expect change given it has been implemented relatively unchanged for literally all of my life? What sane person what non gullible person would believe this?

Someone who believes in democracy and civic-engagement - call me naïve if you wish.

This is why he general attitude of Americans are basically screw it I'll risk getting caught doing something illegal because the system is broken without a fix in sight. Years and years with the example of people not being prosecute for example to the fullest extent of the law or at all depending on the law is commonplace.

What sane person, what non gullible person would believe in positive change without arbitrary measures being implemented for security theatre (ATF classifications and import point system)?

I agree though I still feel that one should continue to work with it and improve it as one can rather than simply give up - it seems to me to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This article doesn't show how stores were "fudging records" as my FFL does alter form 4473s in order to correct via ATF guidelines. The source is nebulous and claims illegal action yet there isn't any specifics. The devil is in the details. It cites one dealer in violation that legitimately sounds criminal but again it doesn't explain how the forms are being altered which is key in determining if they were illegally altered or not.

I am highly skeptical.

I understand, though it was all I could find given the report to which I referred happened around 2008.

This would be the rule and NOT the exception. Majority of states do NOT have registries for NON NFA items as federally it is prohibited to do so in order to prevent gun confiscation under Reagan ironically part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

My point is the registries that were previously made led to the government helping criminals know which homes to target leading to more firearms being stolen. It is why such information shouldn't be public recorded or consolidated whatsoever.

Not sure how these resulted In the government "helping" criminals if they weren't available to the public?!

Ah but you fail to see the positive. The vast majority of Trump's followers didn't do anything stupid. They didn't believe what he was saying which means they do hold critical thinking skills. It means they can look at Trump and not blindly follow literally whatever he is saying. It still means the consideration of people and what a statement being true is still contested even by his followers. I myself voted for Trump twice. It still doesn't change the fact the guy lacks tact and in some examples is an asshole.

Yes, the majority of Americans, regardless of political ideology, didn't believe - much less act - on this conspiracy.

However, the relatively small number who did could have overthrown the government, and left America vulnerable to outside forces.

That's what's so worrying - even for someone across The Pond!

I don't think NICS should exist as in any system I can think of it would require holding documents in order to grant access to criminal records or other records that have personal identifiable information in order to determine a denial. It would mean keeping records of NICS which is ILLEGAL under the GCA of keeping a registry. I am for the full abolishment of the background check system and simply granting more ability to deny prospective buyers on legal suspicion.

I have already personally experienced those with active warrants on them coming to my work in order to purchase firearms. A background check wasn't even needed to be ran because of facial recognition software and a detective actively attempting to purchase his firearm from the counter help. The smell of weed led attention to the fourth time conviction felon for murder and felonies relating to drugs and other violent crime.

Two units were dispatched and other weapons and drugs were found when the suspects vehicles were searched. I highly doubt they got any serious time in prison as even then I think they qualified for parole which technically if my system were implemented that guy wouldn't even be alive to commit further crimes.

Well done for spotting them, and acting upon your instincts. But wouldn't it help if these were backed up with a working NICS where necessary?

I am not in favor of dismantling the U.S. government as a whole.

I am definitely in favor of trimming the hedges so to speak.

No more Corporate Socialism for well established businesses in order for example tax dollars to fund private jet fleets and the like. That is egregious. Also I wouldn't want the U.S. to give out foreign aid. Fix your own house before looking to others. It would definitely cut down on costs to operate and make it possible for a surplus in order to get out of debt. Also it would mean scaling back laws that keep manufacturing abroad. I'm tired of cheap Chinese nonsense that doesn't work as intended and I am certainly not for the U.S. to be reliant in any significant way to China for anything. Quality of life would increase I would imagine too. This is offtopic though.

Perhaps, though it does help clarify where you're coming from.

I agree with your sentiments regarding corporations being effectively subsidised by the taxpayer. The fact that some corporations don't pay any tax - or even are given tax-payers dollars by the IRS - is ridiculous.

Were something equivalent to combined reporting implemented nationally so that, wherever US corporations are based (home or abroad) and wherever they make/keep their money (home or abroad), they pay tax on it, that would help get rid of off-shore accounts, and manufacturing abroad.

There's a feeling - even amongst billionaires - that the rich should pay more.

What does that have to do with Corporate Socialism with Corporations dictating law to the government?

Fascism involves special interest groups - corporations, in this case - exercising power to get things their own way, such as corporate socialism.

Frankly Hack and Slash is a dickhead and simply wouldn't leave AD homs out of the argument so I ignored him. If you aren't going to argue semi concisely then I have no interest in the conversation.

I'll talk to anyone about anything - in that, at least, I have no prejudice. I tend to err on the side of honey.

Although it's difficult replying to this post as my own quotes to which you're replying are missing, so I'm having to remember what I said.

Well I do support the abolishment of the NFA and the NICS as they are highly corrupt and incompetent ventures. 16 months to get a suppressor and I have to pay 200 dollars tax? The ATF classification of pistols, rifles and shotguns. ATF import system a set of rules to get classification in regards to Saturday Night Specials when locally produced hi points are like 150 makes no sense - Ridiculous.

Have a better one,
The Gun Hipster

If these various issues were improved/removed, would you accept NICS?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

My point being, I think it's dangerous to think that "foreigners are (inherently) more violent than us" - not just for you as an American but also for myself as a European.

Third world countries are inherently more violent. Take a look at national statistics and those countries beat the U.S. in terms of homicide rate and violent crime rate as a majority. Yes they are inherently more violent.

IF their issues are due to neurological damage, assuming it could not be resolved through surgery and/or medication, then the person would - sadly - have to remain in the institution for the rest of their life, unless a medical breakthrough occurred, allowing them to be cured, and released back to society.

That is basically life in prison without a likely possibility of parole basically. I would rather die. I would rather not pay for lost causes. Put those tax dollars where you actually need it and can readily expect societal improvement.

In either case, the death penalty is not a consideration (the former) or only acts to make the perpetrator take more care in planning the murder so that they're not caught (the latter)

It's not a deterrent, and has other negatives: racial bias, executions can't be undone, miscarriages of justice mean that all involved must live with the fact that they've brought about the death of a innocent person, extra costs of death penalty cases, etc.

I disagree you would essentially be making it impossible for repeat crimes to be committed and considering the state of repeat crime in the U.S. is so high it is obvious why I would be in favor of it. Also you would essentially break the connections organized crime uses to run their empires thus reducing the crime rates. Under the conditions I previously laid out (I think I did maybe not this thread?). The odds of someone being thrice convicted (on other crimes not at the same time) would make it highly unlikely for a false positive and thus an innocent to be executed.

I don't recall seeing this, and don't quite follow what you're saying here.

This is in regards to right to appeal. I was saying stripping that in order to lower the cost of execution which is made prohibitively expensive due to appeals process. I am saying waive that right when your third conviction for a heinous crime is confirmed.

The sentencing in America is arbitrary where a first-time offence can earn a 99 year sentence without anyone being killed or even shot.

I don't think that is arbitrary also I doubt it would be a 99 year sentence for just 1 offence.

Mandatory minimums of 5 years for drug offences don't help either.

Not in favor of the drug war. Not when the borders are unsecured and people can just literally walk across without intervention.

There are programs to divert youths from gangs and to help reduce gang violence but these are run by or involve ex-felons and, as a result, LEAs are loathe to work with them, and their funding has been cut - even though the programs have proven effective.

After school programs in order to create better ties with friends and to keep kids being constructive and busy. Scared straight programs with ride a longs would also help. Giving information on likely sentencing for various crimes and what happens long term would go a long way on top of the previous suggestion.

What happens if you suffer a psychiatric problem, shoot someone, and then face your own suggested solution? Would you really want that for yourself? I certainly wouldn't - as long as there's a chance I'd be cured in the future, I'd rather be in a psychiatric institute rather than summarily killed.

If I am in such state then I am not even me anymore. I am not antonymous I am a zombie. I wouldn't even be aware of what it happening to me and those funds can actually be used to better aid society and not me in such an unrecoverable state.

US mental healthcare needs to be improved and funded properly - this is a major issue in your healthcare system.
It's not down to just one person. Although, since you've blamed Reagan for the mental health problems in America, at least you're consistent.

Reagan did the most damage therefore generalization arguments are typically this way. There are state senators that followed suit but the bulk of the funding came from federal tax dollars. He is most at fault and a singular name instead of 50+ names.

Getting rid of it is not the solution - various polls have consistently shown that around 90% of the American public support universal background checks.
It's the various issues in how it's implemented that need to be addressed - even if one has to fix these a piece at a time, it's worth doing. If these were fixed, then it would be workable.

I would have to equate this to hell freezing over. The system has been broken more than my adult life with politicians being actively aware of the problem and solution and it wouldn't take much effort to pass an amendment to the 94 bill.

As I understand it, the system currently works off arrests and/or the issuing of bench warrants rather than the outcome of such processes: if the person isn't charged and/or the charges are dropped or the person is declared innocent, these are not necessarily in the system - hence the false positives. Were these outcomes in the system, instead of arrests/warrants, then the false positives would diminish, if not disappear.

Another issue is where someone who's name happens to match someone with a record resulting in their being flagged. Were the name cross-referenced with their NI number, this would prevent such a mix-up.

Though the much touted "gun show loophole" may not be as big as some claim - 0.7% of felons claim to have bought weapons there - by doing the background checks at the entrance to the shows, it would ensure that the only people allowed in a show are law-abiding (notwithstanding the problems you and others currently are having).

Convictions not arrests. An arrest record doesn't prohibit you are technically it shouldn't as the law is written. If the system is so easily confused especially when your full legal name, social security number and state identification is a requirement in order to have a firearms transfer at an FFL then the system is fairly incompetent. All three have to match in order to run a background check. If your record is so confused then the government is super incompetent in this regard. Class A mis or above prohibits transfer in terms of criminal conviction. Dis honorable discharge will cause a denial flag. Mental adjudication will also. There are other statuses but I am only going over prohib status for citizens. Also double standards and hidden standards of prohib status shouldn't exist.

I understand - but it still means that it comes down to your (and other gun sellers') ability to spot a ne'er-do-well. A properly working background check system would be better.

But that is like arguing that money will rain from the sky. How likely is this after multiple decades of the same problems with the same system? I say tear it down. It has done nothing but inconvenience me and with private transfers being legal in majority of states I don't see the point other than running something through for an NFA item.

The NICS system, and others, are looking at a history of violence, and - on that basis - attempting to predict whether someone is likely to commit a gun-related crime: if they're flagged, they're likely to commit such a crime, and shouldn't be sold a gun.

It's not a crystal ball that sees the future of someone who isn't flagged or has never committed a crime in their life.

Well it operates on convictions well I covered this already above.

I assume you're referring to a false negative?! Or have I misunderstood what you meant?

Yes I was denied on multiple occasions I have no prohibitive status as I work at an FFL. I was denied regardless same with certain Law enforcement officers.

Someone who believes in democracy and civic-engagement - call me naïve if you wish.

Yes very naive. I am interested in practicality and logistics.

I agree though I still feel that one should continue to work with it and improve it as one can rather than simply give up - it seems to me to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If the baby routinely shits in the water and the water is of no help in cleaning the infant why keep them? Why wouldn't you simply start over? It is inherently broken. Why keep something that is inherently broken? The legal records have no requirement to be sent between states why would the criminal record you base on denials then be accurate? The system is broken and it should be deleted. Again private transfers are legal how does this make sense?

Not sure how these resulted In the government "helping" criminals if they weren't available to the public?!

The government made that information PUBLIC. The government is the reason those homes were targeted and as a result firearms stolen. Not the first time either mind you.

Yes, the majority of Americans, regardless of political ideology, didn't believe - much less act - on this conspiracy.
However, the relatively small number who did could have overthrown the government, and left America vulnerable to outside forces.
That's what's so worrying - even for someone across The Pond!

No absolutely disagree. There would be no way in order to keep and hold that in order to overthrow the country. You still had capital guards on the grounds. The only reason they got in was because some of the guards basically didn't physically prevent them from entering. They let them in. There is footage of people breaking windows to get in because of the massive surge of people but as a majority people simply walked right in. They wouldn't be able to hold and keep that area in order to keep the actual government from retaining control.

Well done for spotting them, and acting upon your instincts. But wouldn't it help if these were backed up with a working NICS where necessary?

I mean it wasn't difficult it was highly obvious and I already wasn't going to transfer to them just from taking a look at them - bloodshot eyes and the stinch of them. I have to ask in all seriousness "coulda shoulda woulda". I am interested in the practical and logistical. This is not the system we have. This is not the system which is even possible given the effort of politicians in attempting to address the system. ONLY the shortcomings and not going off on a tangent on something else like pistol grips on long guns which serve no substantial representation in crime in the U.S. which then gets challenged and the bill that supposedly was aimed at fixing NICS then gets bloated with random crap that people generally do not support. They are phenomenal time wasters and frankly could address and fix a lot of things if bills were highly specific and addressed highly specific things in the U.S. but that isn't reality.

There's a feeling - even amongst billionaires - that the rich should pay more.

No contest. I absolutely hate the saying "eat the rich" however especially when it comes from some entitled Starbucks chugging college drop out.

Although it's difficult replying to this post as my own quotes to which you're replying are missing, so I'm having to remember what I said.

Yea the quotes on this board leave much to be desired.

If these various issues were improved/removed, would you accept NICS?

That is like arguing what one would do if hell froze over. In a few instances the NICS doesn't make sense even if you didn't have false denials and in other ways even if 100% accurate I still would be infuriated. It seems like deliberate arbitrary security theatre only to be used against me and expanded infinitely depending on who is in power.

I could fix the criminal problem in the U.S. fairly quickly assuming I could unilateral change the law or have pretty much unending support from both parties. Secure the border/repeat offenses means penalty against origin country/border policy is mirror of origin country, reform pathway to citizenship, eject those that do not conform, search and destroy organized crime, federal asylum and mental institutions implemented/give incentive for states to fund their own programs, foreign aid cancelled to get our own affairs in order, pull out of the middle east for good, dissolving of foreign bases not actively involved in first strike capability, dissolve corporate socialism but putting a hard cap on amounts relative to the percentage of net profit, execute those immediately on death row that have no opportunity for parole , parole those with non violent drug offenses with full pardon(if just this offense), lower taxes because spending would be massively reduced thanks to the reduction in armed forces budget and foreign aid, restore infrastructure etc.

Tired bleh night.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's the Dunning-Kruger Boogaloo.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Third world countries are inherently more violent. Take a look at national statistics and those countries beat the U.S. in terms of homicide rate and violent crime rate as a majority. Yes they are inherently more violent.

If you had but a modicum of lateral reasoning skill, you might stand a chance of teasing out why this is a damning indictment on the socioeconomic status of the US. That, despite it being the richest country on Earth, it's still functionally a third-world country under pretty much every metric.

Of course, since even the most rudimentary linear reasoning is demonstrably out of your reach, I'll just drop it here as a pointer for others who do have the skills but may not have reverse-engineered the implications as yet.

It's a lovely and, I think (suspect; happy to discover I'm wrong) entirely unassailable conclusion about the asinine exceptionalist blurb promulgated about the laughably tagged 'Land of the Free'.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

If you had but a modicum of lateral reasoning skill, you might stand a chance of teasing out why this is a damning indictment on the socioeconomic status of the US. That, despite it being the richest country on Earth, it's still functionally a third-world country under pretty much every metric.

Of course, since even the most rudimentary linear reasoning is demonstrably out of your reach, I'll just drop it here as a pointer for others who do have the skills but may not have reverse-engineered the implications as yet.

It's a lovely and, I think (suspect; happy to discover I'm wrong) entirely unassailable conclusion about the asinine exceptionalist blurb promulgated about the laughably tagged 'Land of the Free'.

I can make my own opinions yes. Not so when we consider the U.K. already covered this.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I can make my own opinions yes. Not so when we consider the U.K. already covered this.

I appreciate some Americans are completely fucking clueless about the rest of the world, but as much as it might surprise you, people in the UK are also entitled to have opinions.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I appreciate some Americans are completely fucking clueless about the rest of the world, but as much as it might surprise you, people in the UK are also entitled to have opinions.

Indoodle.

In my culture, when people engage in mindless self-aggrandizement, we pop their bubble and make them look foolish.

In his, they elect the fucker president.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I appreciate some Americans are completely fucking clueless about the rest of the world, but as much as it might surprise you, people in the UK are also entitled to have opinions.

Since when?