he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
BoganUSAFFLClerk's gift for recall leaves much to be desired.
This reminds me of a question that BoganUSAFFLClerk saw fit to ignore:
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Ridiculous U.S. gun laws.
- Thread starter BoganUSAFFLClerk
- Start date
BoganUSAFFLClerk's gift for recall leaves much to be desired.
This reminds me of a question that BoganUSAFFLClerk saw fit to ignore:
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
"Specifically" I would consider the arguments made to be general or vague.
Considering that more than one member came here hostile to begin with and basically initiated the insults why would anyone devote the time and energy into a serious argument? It is quite clear they don't take me seriously or even address the topic even while the admins both and I have said to actually stick on the topic and they had to lock the thread? Therefore this happens over multiple days repeated nonsense and I don't give a shit. Had people stayed on topic it would have different but that isn't the reality.
Except nothing argued was based on race it is based on nationality and criminal status. Again I am in favor of executing those with repeat violent records. It doesn't say execute those with repeat violent records (N!@#%*s, K!@^#s, S!@#s etc only).
Completely wrong. That is actually an ice breaker not to be taken seriously. It is sort of like entering a voice chat and shouting "whats up fuckers!" only in the context of wanting to get a discussion or debate.
The American context for ownership doesn't leave the leeway to be not part of the monolith considering the reality and logistics of American gun controls. Incompetent records such as myself being a law abiding citizen and being denied transfers on multiple occasions as an instructor, issued permit and someone that sells firearms is a huge infuriating insult it is clear that it doesn't work. In other words you can suggest the gun controls all you want and suggest how they should work in particular however the odds that is will work as you intend are not great as demonstrated over and over in terms of American law. Or flat out certain gun controls are draconian in nature by default.I'm Caucasian - so, my DNA would show European, of which up to 4% will be Neanderthal. Although you also look Caucasian, because you're American, there's a possibility of Native American ancestry in your genealogy - a DNA test would show this.
You don't think different governments deal with birth certificates differently? Just because yours doesn't, doesn't mean other government don't put that information.
Except I suggested zero tolerance on those that HAVE records. Not people that initially get a record and are not given a chance to work their way out of the prison system. You stating this makes it clear you didn't understand what I argued in terms of REPEAT OFFENDERS.
So at no point do the listeners ask clarifying questions? How does the speaker know they are being clear if the speaker isn't challenged?
Name me a country where crime doesn't exist. In society there are wolves and there are sheep. One preys on the other.
That ISN'T MAY ISSUE. That is a SHALL ISSUE principle of objective standards and not PERSONAL OPINION or DESCRETION. In the case of California carry permit process their MAY ISSUE process is by default tyrannical. You could pay and follow the objective qualifications in getting a permit and for no other reason you are denied. Why is that NOT tyrannical? It is entirely arbitrary why you were denied especially after you have PAID.
Armed forces can and DO WAIVE their requirements in terms of criminal records. Felons do get into the military in the U.S. it just depends under what circumstance.
Illegal Immigrants by definition are law breakers simply by being here and entering illegally they have committed a crime - they are ILLEGAL.
Amnesty has been given on multiple occasions (under Obama) and a majority of illegals are not citizens when that particular olive branch has been made. They are NOT interested in become citizens or assimilating.
Not necessarily recirculating 3rd party Chinese crap doesn't help the U.S. it cheapens it.
They do try to draft laws when they have no ability to make law in the U.S.. Having a foreign entity create laws when they are not part of the legislative branch does suggest world government or globalism. It would be even worse than the EU and the UK the EU lords over the UK and the people living in a area have the LEAST say the LEAST power.Years ago, the UN did a report which showed this but, when they found out, the US government threatened to pull the UN's funding, so the UN buried the report. [So much for Americans' claims that the UN is an attempt at a "world government"!]
Which is more important? Diverting programs or leadership of continuing operations while in a prison? You kill the leadership gang members become less organized. Less organization means less recruitment and general crime reductions because gangs don't know what to do in order to be successful as a gang because their leadership is destroyed. Also being executed and being told you will be killed if you travel down this route as an example reduces recruitment of gangs to begin with.
It doesn't address the massive numbers of incarcerated that will have no effect with them currently in prison. Likely they are too far gone given the number of repeated convictions equating to basically a life sentence even while being pled down and good behavior. They are stuck.
This itself is a citation of why you're incompetent at honest discussion, which is quite obviously the point Hack was making.
As usual, you're lying about what people write. This is why you're getting treated like a clown, Qbro, because it's clownery.
You just ignored the point Hack was making, concocted such a nonsensical summation of his point that it doesn't even amount to a strawman, then accuse him of not arguing the point.
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Go back in the thread and read the comment he was replying to. It dealt with firearms qualifications and authority and speaking on the subject. Obviously the context is firearms and competency gee I wonder what that means.
I don't really think you know what you're arguing anymore - you're just arguing.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Your "lazy argument" - immigrants cause (violent) crime - has been the underlying theme of your posts, resulting in certain members not taking you seriously, particularly since you seemed to cling to it despite being provided multiple studies showing that there wasn't any correlation between immigration and violent crime.
As I pointed out above, you referred to "foreigners" and "third-world people", not by specific nationalities, which indicates that you have a prejudice against non-whites - unless by "foreigners" you were including Europeans?
If there are problems, they need to be sorted out. If you can't resolve them as a individual, then you need to go through as many groups as you can to solve it: your employer, the organisation representing FFLs, the NRA (as you're NRA-certified), etc. IF you have enough groups all asking/pursuing the same question/issue, you're more likely to get it resolved than just ignoring it in a fatalistic way.
The NSSF supports "FixNICS" - another organisation through which you could pursue your particular issue.
The developmental psychologist I mentioned elsewhere also had a issue with Revenue (here in Ireland) over rental tax. When he did his figures online, what they sent him was several thousand Euros more than what the online form had shown.
So, he contacted Revenue, and got the name and number of a individual with whom he could find out why their figure was much higher than his. It turned out that he hadn't claimed any exemptions from 2017 - why this only showed up this year and not any of the intervening years, the person couldn't say, just that he owed this unpaid tax.
So he argued with her that, as he hadn't claimed the relevant exemptions then, he was claiming them now. After multiple back-and-forths, she conceded that he could, and then recalculated the figures - when he got them in the post, they were wrong.
So, he contacted her again and went through the figures, pointing out where she'd done her sums wrong. After much arguing back-and-forth, she finally conceded that, not only did he not owe any back tax but that Revenue probably owe him a rebate - and it's now been escalated to a higher power.
All because he wouldn't let it go.
Don't just sit back and feel resentful about "Big Gubmint" - get the name and number of someone who is then in your firing line for every time you have a issue with transfers, etc. When they feel the heat, they'll do something - if only to pass it up to a higher power,
So I don't see why you're implying that it does.
Correction: HWIN's pointed out below that he was referring to his driver's licence. I withdraw that claim.
In the relevant thread, I'd noted that, having gone through relevant programs in prison, that if they re-offended on release, that their issues were deeper, and they'd need to be under psychiatric care in a psychiatric institution rather than back in prison.
This has nothing to do with the point I was making above.
That zero tolerance policies being implemented means that you could get arrested for something even though, up to then, the law has not been enforced.
Take littering, for example.
A place is a tip because people are littering. Then TPTB decide to enforce littering laws - the police start arresting anyone they see littering - even though it's a pig-sty.
That's to what I was referring: you suddenly find yourself with a record,, even though you - and everyone else - has been littering up to now.
I'm not sure how you managed to confuse these two ideas.
It took over 20 pages before you finally admitted to it being a "lazy argument".
Who then is responsible for the "20 pages of nonsense"?
Japan is perhaps the safest country - despite it's near 130 million population it has arguably the lowest crime rate in the world.
The difference is the easy availability of guns.
Their basing their policy on guns on proverbial "assault weapons" - as if all guns are such - is the primary reason why California appears - as you say - tyrannical.
As I've said elsewhere, the key is a history of violence: if someone has a history of violence and/or suffers from a mental health problem known to be associated with violence (paranoid schizophrenia, for example), then they should be barred from accessing weapons.
The only one who does that is the Foreign Legion.
The reason why an immigrant is in the country matters: are they here to evade justice in their country of origin or are they here to support themselves and their loved ones? There's a considerable difference between the two.
You're mistaking a stable percentage of immigrants who don't become citizens for the same immigrants who don't - these are not the same thing. The percentage may remain stable but the actual immigrants who become citizens may be being replaced by new immigrants, hence why the percentage remains the same.
Your suspicion is exactly what I was referring to in my previous post.
That way you'd seriously impair their ability to run gangs from prisons.
It would have the same effect as executing them.
Even so, there are always those who are ready to take their place on the street. These need to be diverted, and you can only do that if you have effective programs run by people they respect: former gang leaders/members.
A recent study shows that "strong neighbourhoods" help reduce gun violence. [2]
If you can successfully divert youth from getting involved in crime in the first place, then the numbers would come down.
I've already addressed how the justice system needs to change to encourage those in prison to change rather than twiddle their thumbs waiting to get out and return to a life of crime.
Kindest regards,
James
My post was on-topic, concise, in that I pointed out my specific objections. Anything more would have been superfluous.
As has been pointed out to you in the other thread, your earliest posts indicated a certain prejudice towards non-whites - "foreigners are violent", "immigrants from third-world countries", etc. - before the back-and-forth of this thread occurred.
Your "lazy argument" - immigrants cause (violent) crime - has been the underlying theme of your posts, resulting in certain members not taking you seriously, particularly since you seemed to cling to it despite being provided multiple studies showing that there wasn't any correlation between immigration and violent crime.
That's simply not the case.
As I pointed out above, you referred to "foreigners" and "third-world people", not by specific nationalities, which indicates that you have a prejudice against non-whites - unless by "foreigners" you were including Europeans?
Misreading your audience wasn't the best thing to do, given you'd already revealed your prejudice against "third world people". Or was the latter part of your misreading of LoR's members? - that we'd agree with you about "third world people"?
Yes, government is clunky, and the larger it is, the clunkier it gets.
If there are problems, they need to be sorted out. If you can't resolve them as a individual, then you need to go through as many groups as you can to solve it: your employer, the organisation representing FFLs, the NRA (as you're NRA-certified), etc. IF you have enough groups all asking/pursuing the same question/issue, you're more likely to get it resolved than just ignoring it in a fatalistic way.
The NSSF supports "FixNICS" - another organisation through which you could pursue your particular issue.
The developmental psychologist I mentioned elsewhere also had a issue with Revenue (here in Ireland) over rental tax. When he did his figures online, what they sent him was several thousand Euros more than what the online form had shown.
So, he contacted Revenue, and got the name and number of a individual with whom he could find out why their figure was much higher than his. It turned out that he hadn't claimed any exemptions from 2017 - why this only showed up this year and not any of the intervening years, the person couldn't say, just that he owed this unpaid tax.
So he argued with her that, as he hadn't claimed the relevant exemptions then, he was claiming them now. After multiple back-and-forths, she conceded that he could, and then recalculated the figures - when he got them in the post, they were wrong.
So, he contacted her again and went through the figures, pointing out where she'd done her sums wrong. After much arguing back-and-forth, she finally conceded that, not only did he not owe any back tax but that Revenue probably owe him a rebate - and it's now been escalated to a higher power.
All because he wouldn't let it go.
Don't just sit back and feel resentful about "Big Gubmint" - get the name and number of someone who is then in your firing line for every time you have a issue with transfers, etc. When they feel the heat, they'll do something - if only to pass it up to a higher power,
This was something I said - were you intending to respond to it, or was it just an error with the quote function?
HWIN - a fellow American - noted that his certificate didn't mention his ethnicity either, which suggests that yours doesn't too.
So I don't see why you're implying that it does.
Correction: HWIN's pointed out below that he was referring to his driver's licence. I withdraw that claim.
Not the case.
In the relevant thread, I'd noted that, having gone through relevant programs in prison, that if they re-offended on release, that their issues were deeper, and they'd need to be under psychiatric care in a psychiatric institution rather than back in prison.
This has nothing to do with the point I was making above.
That zero tolerance policies being implemented means that you could get arrested for something even though, up to then, the law has not been enforced.
Take littering, for example.
A place is a tip because people are littering. Then TPTB decide to enforce littering laws - the police start arresting anyone they see littering - even though it's a pig-sty.
That's to what I was referring: you suddenly find yourself with a record,, even though you - and everyone else - has been littering up to now.
I'm not sure how you managed to confuse these two ideas.
You were challenged throughout on your "immigrants cause (violent) crime" claim, yet you seemed unable and/or unwilling to take the hint that you were wrong.
It took over 20 pages before you finally admitted to it being a "lazy argument".
Who then is responsible for the "20 pages of nonsense"?
Perhaps there's an island somewhere in the Pacific with no crime but that's not for what you're looking.
Japan is perhaps the safest country - despite it's near 130 million population it has arguably the lowest crime rate in the world.
The difference is the easy availability of guns.
I stand corrected.
Their basing their policy on guns on proverbial "assault weapons" - as if all guns are such - is the primary reason why California appears - as you say - tyrannical.
As I've said elsewhere, the key is a history of violence: if someone has a history of violence and/or suffers from a mental health problem known to be associated with violence (paranoid schizophrenia, for example), then they should be barred from accessing weapons.
Those who are actively being sought for crimes in their country of origin and/or have committed violent crimes are not allowed entry into the armed forces.
The only one who does that is the Foreign Legion.
The reason why an immigrant is in the country matters: are they here to evade justice in their country of origin or are they here to support themselves and their loved ones? There's a considerable difference between the two.
You're mistaking a stable percentage of immigrants who don't become citizens for the same immigrants who don't - these are not the same thing. The percentage may remain stable but the actual immigrants who become citizens may be being replaced by new immigrants, hence why the percentage remains the same.
Yet again, the figures don't support your prejudice [1]
They are drafting international law, through cooperation by member nations - not national laws.
Your suspicion is exactly what I was referring to in my previous post.
One of the problems I have with prison systems is, given that they appear to have access to mobile phones - whether brought in or by using prison guards phone or being held for them by the guards - why don't they have a blanketing field that only allows emergency calls.
That way you'd seriously impair their ability to run gangs from prisons.
It would have the same effect as executing them.
Even so, there are always those who are ready to take their place on the street. These need to be diverted, and you can only do that if you have effective programs run by people they respect: former gang leaders/members.
A recent study shows that "strong neighbourhoods" help reduce gun violence. [2]
Yes, as a former Secretary of Corrections in NC noted, those who are in their thirties or older who don't value education are very difficult to rehabilitate into society.
If you can successfully divert youth from getting involved in crime in the first place, then the numbers would come down.
I've already addressed how the justice system needs to change to encourage those in prison to change rather than twiddle their thumbs waiting to get out and return to a life of crime.
Kindest regards,
James
Last edited:
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
I was specifically talking about driver's licenses, not birth certificates. I cannot check my birth certificate because I am out of town for work.
Or is it really that you were born a Muslim in Khazakhstan, Uncle Bamma?
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
It appears the US birth cert does. [1]
I'll correct that if I still can.
Kindest regards,
James
Ah... awkward moment.
It appears the US birth cert does. [1]
I'll correct that if I still can.
Kindest regards,
James
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Understanding 922r Compliance
We cover everything you need to know about 922r compliance - what it is (in plain language) and how to comply with it. 922r isn't that complicated afterall.
gununiversity.com