Ridiculous U.S. gun laws.

[Sparhafoc]

Stop being dishonest and simply engage with the topic.

If you want to control the conversation, run along and get yourself a blog.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

View attachment 408

Point of order.

BoganUSAFFLClerk started this thread on June 25, and no one responded to it. He then created a second post on June 29, and again, no one responded to it. Then, on July 1, BoganUSAFFLClerk posted, "Come at me bros." and tagging the majority of active users. Again, no one cared about his thread until he invited people to it. So now he is upset that people do not want to stick to a thread they were not interested in in the first place?

 

[Sparhafoc]

There is ample justification for pointing out the guys' squeaky red nose and oversized shoes.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Come at me bros....

Is there a state in the US that lets juveniles own guns and work in gun stores? It's really hard to marry the images of this childish moron and the expected responsibility of a firearm owner.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Point of order.

BoganUSAFFLClerk started this thread on June 25, and no one responded to it. He then created a second post on June 29, and again, no one responded to it. Then, on July 1, BoganUSAFFLClerk posted, "Come at me bros." and tagging the majority of active users. Again, no one cared about his thread until he invited people to it. So now he is upset that people do not want to stick to a thread they were not interested in in the first place?

Invited to speak on a particular topic doesn't mean I invited someone to not speak on the topic. You are ridiculous.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Come at me bros....

Is there a state in the US that lets juveniles own guns and work in gun stores? It's really hard to marry the images of this childish moron and the expected responsibility of a firearm owner.

Firearms instructor but waffle on I suppose.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Firearms instructor but waffle on I suppose.

Retail assistant.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Invited to speak on a particular topic doesn't mean I invited someone to not speak on the topic. You are ridiculous.

Invited? Tagging several people in a thread that you were only posting in with the phrase, "come at me bros," is how you invite people? You know there is a reason why people are clowning on you, right?

Retail assistant.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Not job-shaming or anything, but dude - you work in fucking retail.

That is part of my job. Don't be jealous that my job is far cooler and interesting than yours.

Lots of people do. However people don't make money in the same way that I do. I make more money at this place than I did with certifications in tech.

They don't have nearly the same perks either:

FFL discounts - getting firearms at cost, free firearms insurance, memberships, firearms selling point programs, firearms related items at discount, cost of specific firearms courses are free, carry at your job without reprisal you get to educate others on firearms while making money.

As an instructor people schedule courses to see me and have me train them. That is also retail as well as you are training someone with a skill you have been trained on. I like what I do and I sense you hate what you do.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Invited? Tagging several people in a thread that you were only posting in with the phrase, "come at me bros," is how you invite people? You know there is a reason why people are clowning on you, right?

Yes it is a funny way to invite people and not a boring way to do so correct? I mean you guys are here right? I accomplished my goal.

What you are supposed to do in threads to talk about the topic of the thread which you didn't do - not directly anyway. What you guys primarily did was just throw insults and waste my time. I did get a certain amount of entertainment from this though. Not a total loss especially when I am on my day off.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes it is a funny way to invite people and not a boring way to do so correct? I mean you guys are here right? I accomplished my goal.

I am always going to look in the direction of a clown.

What you are supposed to do in threads to talk about the topic of the thread which you didn't do - not directly anyway.

Like you did here?

What you guys primarily did was just throw insults and waste my time.

Not like there was anything else to do here.

I did get a certain amount of entertainment from this though. Not a total loss especially when I am on my day off.

That is a sad use of a day off. But I agree; this thread is very entertaining.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

We already did this clown.

No you didn't. The context of this is sending a screenshot of you not starting off hostile with insults. Where the screencap of me initiating with insults and not responding with insults? You are smart enough to know the difference right?

I then pointed you to the fact that executive orders resulted in the internment of over 100,000 people... and you responded with some internally contradictory garbled nonsense then started talking about drinking tears and engaging in homoerotic fantasies about me.

1) Most executive orders apply to outside policy meaning they outnumbers being applied on the inside according to the Federal Register.
2) Executive orders are aimed at policies being dictated to agencies under the direct command of the president namely federal ones.
3) I cited precisely that they are not "laws or legislation" proving my point.
4) Even definitionally separation of powers innately means they do not have all the same powers available to them.
5) Even more specific to the internment order that has been removed and is in fact not in effect and no longer an order nor having the force of law.

This all started over the ATF not being able to create law WHICH THEY CANNOT. As the bumpstock ban was overturned proving my point in spades. That is part of the executive branch which is NOT the legislative branch which indeed drafts and creates law. It isn't up to the ATF to create law it is their job to enforce it.

A bumpstock doesn't convert a semi auto to full auto given the legal definition and it isn't up to the ATF to redefine the definition of full auto that is the job of the legislature be it state or federal government.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Like you did here?

Yes I argued concisely against points being made. If people were using insults I used insults against them. Point proven.

Not like there was anything else to do here.

Like directly address the cited laws at the start of the thread like a normal person? But you didn't do that.

That is a sad use of a day off. But I agree; this thread is very entertaining.

Well that isn't the only thing. I got firearms cleaning out of the way so I could go shoot later. Still more productive than you.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes I argued concisely against points being made. If people were using insults I used insults against them. Point proven.

Argued concisely against points!? Laughable.

However, the point being, you did not stick to the OP of that thread, yet here you are screeching about people not sticking to your OP.

Like directly address the cited laws at the start of the thread like a normal person? But you didn't do that.

Yep. I did not do that. You posting, "Come at me bros" and tagging me into your boring thread is the only reason I am here. If I did not do that before you tagged me, why did you think I would after?

I do not know if you noticed this, but there was another thread going with a creationist for the last few weeks. Do you see how no one tagged you in that thread? You could have joined whenever you wanted, but you did not. That is how threads are supposed to work. And when you tag other people in them after a week of no one caring about it, why would you be surprised when no one sticks to the OP? Obviously, the OP was not interesting enough on its own.

Well that isn't the only thing. I got firearms cleaning out of the way so I could go shoot later. Still more productive than you.

Sure you were.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

you did not stick to the OP of that thread, yet here you are screeching about people not sticking to your OP.

Screencap it.

"Come at me bros" and tagging me into your boring thread is the only reason I am here. If I did not do that before you tagged me, why did you think I would after?

Simple awareness of the thread is why you would At someone. Its not guaranteed someone notices a topic on any platform let alone a platform I am entirely new to at the time.

I do not know if you noticed this, but there was another thread going with a creationist for the last few weeks. Do you see how no one tagged you in that thread? You could have joined whenever you wanted, but you did not.

I wasn't even aware of such a thread namely because no one tagged me to send an alert - I didn't even notice. Hah I think this comment has backfired on you severely.

tag other people in them after a week of no one caring about it, why would you be surprised when no one sticks to the OP?

Well again ironic considering the argument above.

Sure you were.

I go out and shoot cheap ammunition which is not known for being clean in terms of powder residue and carbon build up. This is especially disabling in .22 rimfire caliber firearms. What do you mean?






All of those had several hundreds rounds through them and thus were unreliable therefore cleaning.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Come at me bros!

*later*

I don't know what I did wrong, but all the meanies think I'm a twat.

 

[Deleted member 619]

That is part of my job. Don't be jealous that my job is far cooler and interesting than yours.

This is hilarious. Guy who works in a store wants to career-shame an anthropologist and film maker who's made a solid life of world travel by teaching English.

Dude, you've got about 30 seconds of life experience in comparison, no matter your age.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This is hilarious. Guy who works in a store wants to career-shame...

I missed that one! That's hilarious.

I have to confess though..... all I ever wanted was to work in retail! All these years of searching far and wide, and I could have just stayed home and worked in a nearby shop....

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Screencap it.

I will provide a link to the thread, as is customary for forums. Anyone that wants can read through your posts and see for themselves.

Simple awareness of the thread is why you would At someone. Its not guaranteed someone notices a topic on any platform let alone a platform I am entirely new to at the time.

Most people are not as inept as you when it comes to navigating a forum.

I wasn't even aware of such a thread namely because no one tagged me to send an alert - I didn't even notice. Hah I think this comment has backfired on you severely.

Yeah. You being unaware of how a forum works has backfired on me. Boomer.

Well again ironic considering the argument above.

I am pretty sure you do not know what that word means.

I go out and shoot cheap ammunition which is not known for being clean in terms of powder residue and carbon build up. This is especially disabling in .22 rimfire caliber firearms. What do you mean?

Again, sure pal.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

There are relative percentages as well as absolute percentages. Also it doesn't really matter when we consider the topic of the forum. The argument is at the beginning of the thread. It doesn't have any relevance when I am arguing that a piece of plastic is not a firearm or converts a firearm to a machine gun. The topic doesn't really require this explanation and I am tired of addressing topics irrelevant to the thread.

With all due respect, Bogan, the reason why this topic took a wrong turn is because you made a spurious claim - immigrants cause (violent) crime.

When this was challenged, and multiple studies were drawn to your attention conclusively proving that there's no correlation between immigration and violent crime, instead of acknowledging your error and allowing the main topic to be discussed, you've doubled-down on it. Throughout the thread, you've attempted to add qualifiers in a vain attempt to make your claim work - the current version being, "(illegal) immigrants cause (a increase in) (violent) crime".

Even in your latest post, you're adding more qualifiers in an attempt to make it work, as I'll demonstrate by underling them in my reply.

Also immigrants doesn't take into consideration people from the 3rd world and are born here. They are still from the 3rd world originally. Correct? Their bloodline comes from the 3rd world. So this analysis still doesn't take into consideration this

These sort of statements - and others - is why some here have accused you of being racist.

You made a similar statement earlier, which you explained away as "an observation".

Australia's immigrants are from majority from here exactly?

Assuming you meant "from where exactly?", most come from India, China, and the UK [1][2], although they differ depending on type of visa.

Again I am arguing on a generality of 3rd world countries with high violent crime rates. Even then if they are not immigrants and that family or individual is from the 3rd world related by blood then they are still originally from the 3rd world. Many things contribute to a person wanting to commit crime and genetics I think play a role among environment etc.

Again, racist undertones.

Given that, as we keep telling you, all the studies show that there's no correlation between immigration and violent crime, and I've explained to you that - as a result - there can be no causal link either way, your continuing attempts to make your claim work are unreasonable, and simply indefensible.

There are no genetic factors based on "race" - in case your comment is prompted by the idea that there are "five races" based on skin-colour (white, yellow, red, brown, and black): this is an anachronism of a bygone age.

In case no-one has told you, we're all African: there's only one human species.

Also, with regard to your genes/environment comment, in another thread [3], I posted the following:

A developmental psychologist of my acquaintance used to work in the prison system here in Dublin, the capital city of the Republic of Ireland. He'd give talks to inmates on the sociological data of crime.

He pointed out two things:

1) He told them that in Dublin there were six "toxic" post codes. Anyone who grew up in one of these was highly likely to end up in prison. He'd then ask the inmates where they grew up - more often than not, all the inmates were from those post codes. This often shocked them - it showed that they weren't necessarily just a bunch of "bad apples".

2) He'd then show them that there was also a "personal responsibility" side to the equation, by pointing out that others on their street, and even siblings, hadn't ended up in prison. What choices had they made that were different from those who'd ended up in prison?

It gave them a different perspective - they weren't bad people or "losers", as you put it. Some changed their attitudes, and learned to read, and even went on to get degrees. In short, to discover their better nature within themselves.

To which I'll add another factor: a recent study shows that - even if you're a law-abiding citizen - you can get arrested, and end up in prison, if you happen to live during a period of "zero-tolerance" policies on crime.

[And, in typical fashion, just because I want to find it, I can't. ]

They also commit other types of crime not necessarily violent that make other forms of violent crime necessary for other people to commit (for example theft of private identification by others to produced falsified documents in order to obtain other credentials).

This was in response to my point that your claim wasn't based on any crime statistics but merely because they were in the country illegally.

Never argued they did. Key word "all".

In arguing that illegal immigrants acted as mules for drug cartels, the implication was that all of them used people-smugglers linked to such, and then became involved in crime for the cartels.

Or you could simply take the illegal alien population out and if they attempt to return punishment is severe.

The simpler solution is to assimilate them through providing ways for them to gain citizenship.

And, yes - as you noted - not as many do as could, quite possibly because they don't trust the government any more than you.

A summary doesn't show any detail. A summary is not good for trying to convince others. I usually submit a screenshot showing wording and specifics.

I didn't think I needed to do that - but, just for you:

The impact of unauthorized immigrants on the federal budget differs from that population’s effect on state and local budgets primarily because of the types of services provided at each level of government and the rules governing those programs. For instance, most unauthorized immigrants are prohibited from receiving many of the benefits that the federal government provides through Social Security and such need-based programs as Food Stamps, Medicaid (other than emergency services), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Do you think Americans only are concerned about violent crime?

I'm sure Americans aren't only concerned about violent crime.

We don't like illegals because of concerns over general crime and lack of shared values among other things.

Given they come from the same culture - and "bloodlines" - why focus on the fact that they're in America illegally?

Easy being generally anti gun considering their corrupt state. It is inherently unamerican.

Individuals may or may not be anti-gun. And there's no reason to assume that Mexicans, as a culture, are anti-gun, particularly given the amount of violent crime you appear to associate with them based on homicides in Mexico.

There are still droves of gangs regarding Hispanics. Obviously those parents haven't adhered to those values.

Yes, gang-related violence is a issue in America. As I pointed out above with regard to social construction of communities, America's policies aren't helping,

I'm generally anti military as the reasons for conflict regarding the armed forces in the U.S. is primarily wrong. Fix your own house before you involve yourself in the affairs of others.

Fair enough, however, the fact that they are willing to join the armed forces in order to gain citizenship is indicative of their wish to assimilate - and their doing so also shows that they're not anti-gun.

Still American made income is primarily sent home.

Having earned tax revenue from electronic transfer and cost of exchanging to other currencies..

If you read any of the economic sources to which I linked, you'll see that immigrants have created over 200 companies with a net worth of hundreds of billions of dollars, and jobs for those born in America. Given this, it seems petty to complain about the sums being sent back to their families.

Ah so screw the established law of the land eh? They don't enter at legal points required for sanctuary and tie up U.S. systems. That would be like gun law in the U.K. shouldn't be applied to me because I suffer medical care discrimination. I am going to illegally enter the U.K. to seek refuge. Its ridiculous. The U.K. has the right to uphold their laws no different than the U.S..

Again do we enforce the law or not? None of that emotional argument is compelling.

Unless you were in the same situation.

I'm reminded of a report I saw some years ago of a US state legislator who was a hard-liner on those in prisons - until he ended up inside himself. After he came out, he started campaigning for prison reform.

Also considering the Mexican - U.S. border and Mexican immigration policy should be reflected back at anyone attempting to enter from that side.

If you want to decrease the tide of immigrants into your country, change national policy to help those countries economies to improve - that way, immigrants will head home.

Kindest regards,

James