Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - eyeeatingfish

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 493
Legal and Activism / Re: Hunter Biden Conviction
« on: Today at 12:06:20 AM »
Where does the questionnaire ask about the type of drug or length of "lingering effects?" 

Use of any illegal drug is included.  So is addictive use of prescription drugs or alcohol.  People know if the drugs are illegal and if they are addicted.  Since when does the FFL or FBI have to prove you answered falsely to deny you? 

They rely on honest answers and information reported to NICS.  In states like Hawaii, they also rely on the stricter background checks which included medical care provider records.

As I said, common sense.  If you're a frequent consumer of certain mind altering drugs, you're a user.  If you have been unable to stop using, you're an addict.

In before you use the most used lie by addicts: "I'm not addicted.  I can quit anything I choose."

You're really arguing that there's no way to stop someone from lying on the form.  Your stance is no different than when I stated many times that laws don't stop crime. 

Welcome to reality.

If a form asks a technical question but is too vague in its defining of the terms you don't just go applying the test of whether Flapp thinks it is common sense.

In the case of Hunter there was little doubt that he was an addict when he got the gun. I was pointing out the general problem with the question that leaves the door open for a defendant to cast doubt.

You left out "on paper, I would argue...". Since HI violates the constitution every year and so do other states.

Every state and the federal government have violated the constitution at some point. Thats often how case law is made an unenumerated rights are solidified. Violating the constitution doesn't inherently mean we aren't a constitutional form of government.
so it's ok when you split hairs, but not ok when others do it?

I am not splitting hairs, I am just explaining to address your question to me.

Ok drama queen
Legal and Activism / Re: Hunter Biden Conviction
« on: June 14, 2024, 11:35:55 PM »
What if he had a RX for meth?  Did the prosecution ever prove this without a reasonable doubt?  Like did they call every single doctor in the USA?  Did they call every doctor in the world, as even international travelers can bring in drugs into the US with a prescription.

If Hunter had a prescription for meth it wouldn't apply because the question is about unlawful use of drugs. If Hunter had alleged that his crack use (not meth) was somehow prescription then the prosecution would have to take reasonable steps to address this. There is prescription meth but I am not familiar with prescription crack cocaine.

Legal and Activism / Re: Hunter Biden Conviction
« on: June 14, 2024, 11:28:28 PM »
Never.  Addictions like Hunter's do not end.

Those addicts face a lifetime of recovery.  It doesn't take much for them to relapse.

He's been in and out of rehab and relapsed enough times to know this first hand. 

It's a well known and medically accepted fact that if you used in the last few days or hours, you are a user.  A simple declaration you've quit for a day is not sufficient to prove you're no longer an addict/user.

The question doesn't need nuance.   It's common sense.

This isn't a common sense question it is a legal question and potentially a medical question.

Different drugs linger in their effects and different people can experience them differently too so it can be a difficult thing to prove in court. It was easier to prove in court here because Hunter wrote a book and there were witnesses but generally speaking its not always going to be so obvious someone is an occasional user or an addict.

I hope when you explain it to them, you keep it simple. To someone who trains in self defense might understand what's being said on this port. But to your everyday person, they might need something simple.  Even guidance as in you tell them which to buy.  I went to the stores with a few friends as it can be intimidating.

Indeed, I keep it basic otherwise it will be harder to remember.
Here's the link to the complaint

An old letter clearing a person for a disqualifying condition should be good regardless of age.  If they are cleared, then they are cleared from that point forward.  If the problem later reappears then it would be a new diagnosis requiring a new letter.

Thanks Zippz.

I am trying to figure out what justification HPD is giving or arguing for an additional letter.

The complaint mentions it as exhibit 3 but the exhibits don't seem attached so I can't see if that gives a reason.
The fact that he needs any medical clearance for a constitutional right is never reasonable.

I am on the fence on that question.
You all are missing the real intent - put the blame on someone else rather than the criminal. It's not the suspect's fault for doing crime - it is society's.

A lot of time the person who is needing a social worker hasn't committed any crime though.

The thinking behind these programs, from what I have seen, is to have someone who is better able to calm someone down and get them help. There are some cops who do just as good a job at this but there are also a lot of cops who are terrible at it and "control" a situation in a way which makes it worse. 

There are good reasons to consider social workers, they generally have more training in mental health issues and due to the fact they are not LEOs, the individual wont see them as big of a threat as an armed police officer who might arrest them. The downside is that though most people can be talked down, there is a certain percent (I would say about 5%) that are not going to be talked down and force will be necessary. This is where a social worker by themselves and unarmed becomes a big risk.
You're also forgetting what's available in the brick n mortar market.  Many OC buyers aren't educated enough people and will buy what they find on the shelf.  As ordering online, many places like Amazon won't ship. This means, regardless of what they feel is optimal, they have to buy what's in the stores.  I've never seen a fogger for sale to civilians at any store. It's either spray or stream. Granted, this was years ago for a few years. I never checked recently as I get mine from else where.

Then add in people will google "pepper SPRAY".  And buy what ever comes up if they can ship to HI. And even when one googles that, often "pepper spray" is a general accepted term and it's a stream.  I went on Amazon and the first few rows were pepper "sprays", but when you read the fine print, they're all streams.

When I talk to people about pepper spray recommendations I explain the various options. You are right, not all options might be at any given store and any type is better than none.

You are arguing just to argue. Have fun with yourself. Take my advice or don't, I don't care. Not like you are going to take it either way.,
Legal and Activism / Re: Hunter Biden Conviction
« on: June 13, 2024, 10:14:43 PM »
1) Whether or not the case goes forward or get to a higher court isn't the point.  It's what the Biden Admin does in reaction to his son's conviction, that is IF they pursue the 2a angle. 
2) Pardon may help is son, but again the point is whatever the Biden Admin does with this will be the interesting part.  I think it's a no win.  At least IMO.
3) I think if Biden pardons his son then drops out makes things worse.  Worse for credibility if those that follow.  Which is where I am hoping the questions come from within.
4) Sooooo, you think Hunter's conviction and pardon is a shining example of the justice system not being rigged?   ???
5) Beyond the point.  I also suspect Hunter will face any consequences.  Again, point is, at least the point of this thread is all the levels of hypocrisy that is likely to come out to save dear Hunter. . .

1. I do think it matters because if it goes up for appeal and the appeals court reverses it then Biden never has to play the pardon car.
2. Since I think Biden isn't planning on going all the way I don't think he cares if it is a win. Even if he is planning to go all the way, he can always just pardon him after the election then it doesn't hurt huis campaign.
3. Pardons then drops out makes it worse? I don't really see how it makes things worse for Biden or his family. Do you mean worse for the country?
4. A shining example? No but having Hunter get convicted is what I would expect from a functioning justice system. Presidents have the legal power to pardon, that isn't rigging anything. Presidents have pardoned friends and associates before. Pardoning Hunter only helps Hunter substantially if Hunter were sentenced to jail. Being pardoned wont change that he is a convicted felon.
5. From the commentary I have heard on this case it would be unusual for him not to get any jail time but it is also unusual to charge someone for these specific crimes by themselves so arguments can be made both ways in terms of whether Hunter is getting it better or worse than the average person.
Legal and Activism / Re: Hunter Biden Conviction
« on: June 13, 2024, 10:06:08 PM »
Did he or did he not falsely fill out the paperwork to acquire that revolver? 

How can he and his retarded daddy claim he did nothing wrong?

There is wiggle room one could argue regarding the interpretation of the question. 
The question on the form is:
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

If Biden had "quit" using illegal drugs the day before he could argue that he was no longer an unlawful user.. It is an issue with the question wording because when does an addiction end?
For a 2nd time, u suggest alan beck would take on a lawsuit that wont win. FYI, he's still undefeated. Like 10-0

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I never suggested they wont win.
Are you serious?  Read the OP again.  Feel free to ask for help with comprehension.

Not needed. The questions I asked weren't answered in the original post. Maybe you need help with reading comprehension?

If you get a letter saying you are no longer at risk pertaining to owning guns, what do you believe the expiration for that letter should be?  3 years? 5 years?  Whatever the person at the firearms section desk says it should be?  Is there anything in the statute that says there are expiration periods for clearance letters?

Absent any EVIDENCE that's uncovered during the background check, such as a DUI charge/conviction, there's no logical justification for requiring another letter.  It must be assumed that the original problem was treated successfully based on the first letter, or else the doctor is lying or incompetent.

One clearance letter per disqualifying mental health issue is sufficient -- forever, as long as there are no further documented problems related to that issue.

Too many unknowns and I am not going to just make an assumption like you seem to be. There could be half a dozen different reasons why the first letter was insufficient. Thus my question trying to get a better understanding
isn't it specified in the federalist papers?
or maybe you are just adding nuance...

People are splitting hairs when they claim the USA isn't a democracy and there is no real benefit in doing so. What is the point in this? Trying to convince the soft heads that republicans are good and democrats are bad because democracy sounds like democrat?

I would argue that the most accurate phrase would be a constitutional democratic republic. Just saying a republic is insufficient, after all the USSR was a republic.

When you vote for a representative who then passes laws that is a democracy, more specifically a representative democracy. We have that, therefore saying we are not a democracy is wholly inaccurate.
This debate is a giant nothing burger. We are a democracy and a republic. It is a bunch of tribalism creating division for nothing
So this would mean that every time you go to the station to get a long gun permit or to pick one up or to register a gun you should always pick up a pistol PTA just in case you find something good that month! (Or am I missing something?)
How old is his old letter? If it was from a decade ago I could see it being reasonable but if it was just last year then that would seem a little excessive. Is it just a second opinion type thing to verify he is not an addict anymore? I don't understand how the addiction factors in, did he mention it on an application previously?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 493