2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on January 23, 2024, 12:16:42 PM
-
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3196&year=2024
-
First "assault type rifles, shotguns, pistols".
Then lever actions and revolvers.
Then bolt actions and single shots.
The beginnings of an authoritarian state run by demorats.
-
Nice
I like the exceptions for LEO.
So only LEO can have scary looking guns.
After they quit or retire, would they march into the police station and turn them in?
From what I've seen on the news lately there's a lot of supposedly trustworthy upstanding citizens/LEO that can't be trusted with guns nor money.
Meanwhile, we sport shooters and casual hobbyists are permanently banned from owning some kinds of guns just because they look scary to a politician.
-
What has stopped these bills in the past? Do we think it’ll be stopped again?
-
First "assault type rifles, shotguns, pistols".
Then lever actions and revolvers.
Then bolt actions and single shots.
The beginnings of an authoritarian state run by demorats.
U left out pistols. This will be after assault type stuff.
-
What has stopped these bills in the past? Do we think it’ll be stopped again?
THe last mag ban bill our testimony stopped it. We had 1500 people write testimony. Compare this to the 80-130 people who wrote testimony for SB1230 last year which changed all the permit to acquire processes and CCW, added in only can CCW on the sidewalk, etc...
So we shall see how many people write in this time.
-
Se WE ALL need to ca///wirte etc to stop this bill from advancing. Look at the new requirement from SB1230. If we did out part in numbers, the outcome would have been different!
SO WE ALL NEED TO SHOW UP ! IF YOU DON"T, DONT COMPLAIN!
We already know it's ILLEGAL BUT let's rally and make a difference!
Aloha!
-
Nice
I like the exceptions for LEO.
So only LEO can have scary looking guns.
After they quit or retire, would they march into the police station and turn them in?
From what I've seen on the news lately there's a lot of supposedly trustworthy upstanding citizens/LEO that can't be trusted with guns nor money.
Meanwhile, we sport shooters and casual hobbyists are permanently banned from owning some kinds of guns just because they look scary to a politician.
Last I remember a member of HPD left a rifle unattended that could have gotten themselves, bystanders, and the perp hurt or killed. Perp ended up killed. Wouldn't have if HPD didn't leave that rifle unattended.
To all the gun haters and anti-2a people out there, a humble PSA: When seconds count, LE is minutes away. That is the sad reality RIGHT NOW. If there is a WROL (Without Rule of Law) situation how long do you all think it will take for LE to show up? Answer: They won't. Period. You are on your own. How about your beloved Politicians? Will they be running around trying courageously to restore law and order? Answer: No.
You will be at the mercy of the same criminals that existed before WROL. Only thing now is that thin layer of protection is no longer there.
Good luck, dear sheeple.
-
This bill also includes parts, so if something breaks, you got a paper weight.
You also cannot take your gun out of state and bring it back either. So no smithing or competitions or hunting.
-
You know, I used to always use "banana republik" in a joking sense for hawaii.
Then I started using it as a half-joke.
I don't think we can even joke about it anymore if this crap goes through.
-
Even CA compliant "featurelss" rifles won't count as they still have a handguard.
-
What has stopped these bills in the past? Do we think it’ll be stopped again?
laws that instantly turn law abiding citizens into felons usually get stopped once each/some representatives are made aware of the fact that their constituents are the ones who would be made into felons. when the time comes, make sure you do your part and we might have a chance.
-
actually, the time is now
you can call your senator/rep right now and let them know
it can just not be heard, and it is dead automatically...
laws that instantly turn law abiding citizens into felons usually get stopped once each/some representatives are made aware of the fact that their constituents are the ones who would be made into felons. when the time comes, make sure you do your part and we might have a chance.
-
The CA AWB lawsuit drew a DNC controlled panel, so doesn't look good for us. Meaning HI can pass this and it won't go to SCOTUS.
-
Definitely will be submitting a testimony against this. When we submit a testimony speaking against this bill. What do we put in the message part.
-
Definitely will be submitting a testimony against this. When we submit a testimony speaking against this bill. What do we put in the message part.
How it affects u personally. Stating unconstitutional will get ur message overlooked.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
This is germane, but why this fascination with outlawing guns when
the people of Lahina have no place to live?
I can no longer vote in Hawaii, but I'll ask my wife if she wants to comment.
But the Honolulu and Maui people that vote for these guys are IDIOTS!
:grrr:
-
This is germane, but why this fascination with outlawing guns when
the people of Lahina have no place to live?
Because if the truth about Lahaina ever gained widespread acceptance...
-
Because if the truth about Lahaina ever gained widespread acceptance...
Will be closed for another 5 yrs.
-
Definitely will be submitting a testimony against this. When we submit a testimony speaking against this bill. What do we put in the message part.
the best way, is to read the bill, and then make notes to yourself everything you think is wrong with it, your reaction to it. that's your testimony, doesn't have to be pretty, doesn't have to be Shakespeare, doesn't even have to be grammatically correct, or even spelled correctly (e.g. Texas boarder vs Texas border).
just has to be from you.
problem is, most folks don't have the time to read the bill, or don't make the time to read it, "ain't got time fo dat". and then the ainokea, which runs rampant in this state, which Karl Rhoads takes advantage of.
-
"Amends the prohibition on certain assault weapons to include assault rifles, assault shotguns, .50 caliber rifles, and assault weapon attachments. Modernizes the prohibition on assault pistols to include pistols with one or more prohibited feature. Expands the ban on pistols with a detachable magazine with over a ten round capacity to any firearm with a detachable magazine with over a ten round capacity. Prohibits persons from bringing or causing to be brought into the State an assault rifle or assault shotgun. Prohibits the sale or transfer of an assault rifle or assault shotgun in the State, unless the assault rifle or assault shotgun is sold or transferred to an authorized individual. Creates exceptions for the acquisition and possession of prohibited firearms for members of law enforcement and the military."
also bans semi-auto pistols with threaded barrel (for brakes, comps, thread protector, whatever). bans all AK's, all AR's (incl. AR-15, AR-10, AR-types), a whole bunch of semi-auto shotguns, and on and on. bans "any firearm with a detachable magazine with over a ten round capacity;", also .50BMG rifles.
-
"(f) After July 8, 2024, except as provided by section
134-8(e), no person shall bring or cause to be brought into the
State an assault rifle, assault shotgun, .50 caliber rifle, or
assault weapon attachment. No assault rifle, assault shotgun,
.50 caliber rifle, or assault weapon attachment shall be sold or
transferred on or after July 8, 2024, to anyone within the
State, other than to a dealer licensed under section 134-32 or
the chief of police of any county, except as provided by section
134-8 (e); provided that any person who obtains title by bequest
or intestate succession to an assault rifle, assault shotgun, or
.50 caliber rifle registered within the State shall, within
ninety days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell or
transfer the weapon to a licensed dealer of the chief of police
of any county, or remove the weapon from the State."
If I'm reading this right it means you get to keep 'em until you die, but they will be pretty useless without the mags.
-
"(f) After July 8, 2024, except as provided by section
134-8(e), no person shall bring or cause to be brought into the
State an assault rifle, assault shotgun, .50 caliber rifle, or
assault weapon attachment. No assault rifle, assault shotgun,
.50 caliber rifle, or assault weapon attachment shall be sold or
transferred on or after July 8, 2024, to anyone within the
State, other than to a dealer licensed under section 134-32 or
the chief of police of any county, except as provided by section
134-8 (e); provided that any person who obtains title by bequest
or intestate succession to an assault rifle, assault shotgun, or
.50 caliber rifle registered within the State shall, within
ninety days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell or
transfer the weapon to a licensed dealer of the chief of police
of any county, or remove the weapon from the State."
If I'm reading this right it means you get to keep 'em until you die, but they will be pretty useless without the mags.
thats for transfer, theres another section regarding possession.
-
thats for transfer, theres another section regarding possession.
Okay so no grandfather....hand 'em all in by July 8 2024?
-
Okay so no grandfather....hand 'em all in by July 8 2024?
its unclear to me, but seems like no grandfather, honestly im not sure. also keep in mind that the bill can and will be amended multiple times during session. it can easily change drastically the longer its kept alive.
-
Okay so no grandfather....hand 'em all in by July 8 2024?
There is nothing that states possesion is illegal. Just transfering or bringing into the state after 7/8.
So grandfathered.
But this can always be deleted after the bill becomes law. Look at CA and their grandfathered mags.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
There is nothing that states possesion is illegal. Just transfering or bringing into the state after 7/8.
So grandfathered.
But this can always be deleted after the bill becomes law. Look at CA and their grandfathered mags.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
what does this section mean?
"§134-8 Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties. (a) The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited: assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e); assault rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault shotguns, except as provided by section 134-4(f); .50 caliber rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault weapon attachments;
-
what does this section mean?
"§134-8 Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties. (a) The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited: assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e); assault rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault shotguns, except as provided by section 134-4(f); .50 caliber rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault weapon attachments;
That looks like no grandfather to me
If the first people hear about this is a letter in the mail from HPD then we will have failed
-
I'm no attorney, but I'm sure any law that retroactively bans something is significantly harder to pass because it will run into even greater constitutional challenges.
I don't support this bill, but I feel like if there really is no "grandfather clause" it will be indefensible and shall not pass. In my opinion, I'd temper the whole "they're gonna go door to door and take away all of our freedom if this bill passes" because I think that's far, far less of a possibility than it seems.
I already feel the vibes... "omg he's telling us not to write in because he secretly wants guns banned". No, that's not what I'm saying. You exercise your 1st to the maximum extent of the law. However, you probably don't want to sound like a paranoid lunatic in the process. At the end of the day, "you, do you".
-
This bill is blatantly bad. It has drawn our attention. Look out for the bait and switch trick.
-
This bill is blatantly bad. It has drawn our attention. Look out for the bait and switch trick.
I see it as placing all the numbers at craps. Then when one number hits, tell the dealer to take everything down.
Small win. But a win nonetheless.
Then they rinse and repeat. One small win at a time.
-
I feel like this is a very bad bill. So I feel that I should like write in opposition of this bill.
-
I'm no attorney, but I'm sure any law that retroactively bans something is significantly harder to pass because it will run into even greater constitutional challenges.
I don't support this bill, but I feel like if there really is no "grandfather clause" it will be indefensible and shall not pass. In my opinion, I'd temper the whole "they're gonna go door to door and take away all of our freedom if this bill passes" because I think that's far, far less of a possibility than it seems.
I already feel the vibes... "omg he's telling us not to write in because he secretly wants guns banned". No, that's not what I'm saying. You exercise your 1st to the maximum extent of the law. However, you probably don't want to sound like a paranoid lunatic in the process. At the end of the day, "you, do you".
A grandfather clause does very little to dampen this bills affect on law abiding citizens. If this bill passes and you are caught with a firearm that applies(which is literally all semi-automatics) or accessories(all magazines over 10 rds) LE will have two options, assume its grandfathered and do absolutely nothing about it, or assume its not grandfathered and enforce the law until you can prove(to their satisfaction) that it is grandfathered.
-
A grandfather clause does very little to dampen this bills affect on law abiding citizens. If this bill passes and you are caught with a firearm that applies(which is literally all semi-automatics) or accessories(all magazines over 10 rds) LE will have two options, assume its grandfathered and do absolutely nothing about it, or assume its not grandfathered and enforce the law until you can prove(to their satisfaction) that it is grandfathered.
P mags have a manufacturers date on them. Other mags don't and neither do accessories such as BCG's, stocks, handguards, barrels, foregrips, etc...
Then add in they can always delete the grandfather later as the years pass.
-
Keep in mind the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had a hearing yesterday for the California AWB Miller v Bonta. It will likely be a loss for us. This means we cannot sue if this law is passed and it'll be in effect until we get a good SCOTUS 2A ruling again.
-
P mags have a manufacturers date on them. Other mags don't and neither do accessories such as BCG's, stocks, handguards, barrels, foregrips, etc...
Then add in they can always delete the grandfather later as the years pass.
Yes but theres no clause that creates exceptions based on manufacturers date. It would boil down to your word vs the cop who wants to bust you on a felony charge for possession.
"No officer, I went buy that one July 7th, 2024, you can trust me."
-
Keep in mind the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had a hearing yesterday for the California AWB Miller v Bonta. It will likely be a loss for us. This means we cannot sue if this law is passed and it'll be in effect until we get a good SCOTUS 2A ruling again.
^^^This,
Usually if there's a split in the circuit courts, SCOTUS is more likely to take up a case. But the other circuits are also anti 2a and ruling with the state. So unless a pro 2A state passes a law to ban them, then the state wins in court and it goes to their pro 2A circuit and gets struck down, the odds of this going to SCOTUS is greatly reduced.
But some cases do go to SCOTUS without needing a circuit split, which this would be our hailmary due to circuit courts violating Bruen.
-
Yes but theres no clause that creates exceptions based on manufacturers date. It would boil down to your word vs the cop who wants to bust you on a felony charge for possession.
"No officer, I went buy that one July 7th, 2024, you can trust me."
Since all rifles should be registered, the rifle itself would be easy to prove this. The problem would be any accessories added to it, or if you built your own. Same with Pmags, they're a date on them.
-
All these efforts and waste of resources amount to one big nothingburger.
-
Since all rifles should be registered, the rifle itself would be easy to prove this. The problem would be any accessories added to it, or if you built your own. Same with Pmags, they're a date on them.
There are tons of pre94 unregistered rifles in existence.
-
This is the section that allows for grandfathering of registered firearms " This subsection shall not apply to a person's possession of an assault rifle, assault shotgun, or .50 caliber rifle registered to the person subject to the requirements of section 134-3."
There are people with unregistered rifles grandfathered before the registration law passed long ago. These will have to be registered.
As the bill is written, if you take one of these firearms out of state - like to hunt, shooting class, manufacturer repair (?), etc, you cannot bring it back to Hawaii
Almost all semiauto rifles will be considered AW to include mini14s, m1 carbines, etc because of the barrel shroud.
Some semi-auto shotguns will be banned because of the 5 shell limit for the tubes
-
This is the section that allows for grandfathering of registered firearms " This subsection shall not apply to a person's possession of an assault rifle, assault shotgun, or .50 caliber rifle registered to the person subject to the requirements of section 134-3."
There are people with unregistered rifles grandfathered before the registration law passed long ago. These will have to be registered.
As the bill is written, if you take one of these firearms out of state - like to hunt, shooting class, manufacturer repair (?), etc, you cannot bring it back to Hawaii
Almost all semiauto rifles will be considered AW to include mini14s, m1 carbines, etc because of the barrel shroud.
Some semi-auto shotguns will be banned because of the 5 shell limit for the tubes
Is this just state? and not county? When we hunt we take our guns from oahu to lanai or molokai and back. I guess that would be maui county.
-
Is this just state? and not county? When we hunt we take our guns from oahu to lanai or molokai and back. I guess that would be maui county.
The bill says State
-
I will not comply.
This is the section that allows for grandfathering of registered firearms
There are people with unregistered rifles grandfathered before the registration law passed long ago. These will have to be registered.
Almost all semiauto rifles will be considered AW to include mini14s, m1 carbines, etc because of the barrel shroud.
-
The bill says State
sorry for not knowing and also you dont have to look for it for me but where states pre94 now need to be registered, and where is/was the old grandfather exclusion for pre94 unregisterered rifles?
if that previous grandfather clause has/is been done away with/going to be, we should also assume that any grandfathering with this bill can also be done away with in future sessions?
-
sorry for not knowing and also you dont have to look for it for me but where states pre94 now need to be registered, and where is/was the old grandfather exclusion for pre94 unregisterered rifles?
if that previous grandfather clause has/is been done away with/going to be, we should also assume that any grandfathering with this bill can also be done away with in future sessions?
Even though the pre94 section (e) isn't crossed out (deleted), the section right after (f) has a specific date on it. Which means both are in effect. Which means the pre94 one doesn't matter anymore since there's no exception about pre94 written in the new underlines section (f).
You are right to assume that any grandfathering can be done away with in the future. Also anyone who made a HI compliant "assault pistol" cannot do so anymore either because the bill mentions about a fixed mag accepting more than 10rds. So they have also are making having the HI compliant "assault pistols" illegal to leave the state, fix, or transfer ownership if it has a fixed mag that holds more than 10rds..
-
I'm no attorney, but I'm sure any law that retroactively bans something is significantly harder to pass because it will run into even greater constitutional challenges.
I don't support this bill, but I feel like if there really is no "grandfather clause" it will be indefensible and shall not pass. In my opinion, I'd temper the whole "they're gonna go door to door and take away all of our freedom if this bill passes" because I think that's far, far less of a possibility than it seems.
I already feel the vibes... "omg he's telling us not to write in because he secretly wants guns banned". No, that's not what I'm saying. You exercise your 1st to the maximum extent of the law. However, you probably don't want to sound like a paranoid lunatic in the process. At the end of the day, "you, do you".
On the other hand if thousands of people wrote in that they would refuse to comply then the pressure goes back on the politicians to start calculating the social costs of overstepping this far
-
On the other hand if thousands of people wrote in that they would refuse to comply then the pressure goes back on the politicians to start calculating the social costs of overstepping this far
Nah, they will get HPD to do their dirty work with the justification "just following orders".
-
On the other hand if thousands of people wrote in that they would refuse to comply then the pressure goes back on the politicians to start calculating the social costs of overstepping this far
I will not comply. If they want it because they banned it, then they come and take it. I'm not saying I will respond violently or anything like that, just saying you want it come f*cking get it. Good luck breaking my front door down and breaking into my safe. Like I said, I will not comply.
Otherwise, leave me alone. I've owned my firearms responsibly and safely for more years than these young'uns have been on this fricken earth.
I plan to ask why LE would be exempt from this ban. Then I plan to ask them for their protocols that shows how it prevents any of their "well trained" ::) members from leaving a f*ckn weapon unattended.
I wonder what their reasoning is for LE to possess these "assault weapons". To combat criminals who possess these weapons and don't follow laws? If that is the reasoning then it shows they don't give a rat's ass about law-abiding citizens.
Just another dick move towards an authoritarian state. F*ck them.
-
Nah, they will get HPD to do their dirty work with the justification "just following orders".
HPD is not capable of doing thousands of house calls. The justice system is not capable of dealing with thousands of additional cases. Not to mention that the optics would be horrible. They can’t throw us all in jail.
-
HPD is not capable of doing thousands of house calls. The justice system is not capable of dealing with thousands of additional cases. Not to mention that the optics would be horrible. They can’t throw us all in jail.
When it comes time for confiscation, most will turn their guns in by the due date. Then those who didn't will only be a small fraction, so they will send letters to remind people to turn their rifles in. Then they will go to the homes on file and knock, but those who they think will put up a fight, they will just wait till they leave and pull them over on the street.
-
When it comes time for confiscation, most will turn their guns in by the due date. Then those who didn't will only be a small fraction, so they will send letters to remind people to turn their rifles in. Then they will go to the homes on file and knock, but those who they think will put up a fight, they will just wait till they leave and pull them over on the street.
You're making a lot of assumptions. A significant amount of people have already quietly checked out, and even more are feeling rather stupid for playing along for so long and have begun weighing their options. I admire the amount of time and energy you have put into complying with the system and being a model citizen, but at some point you have to realize that their overall goal is setting everything up for turnkey totalitarianism. There will be a triggering event, and all that effort trying to stay on their good side will have been for nothing.
-
Would it be possible to think that here, in Hawaii, there are LE officers courageous enough and smart enough to realize how f*cked up this bill is and declare they will not enforce it?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Yeah, I didn't think so.
-
Would it be possible to think that here, in Hawaii, there are LE officers courageous enough and smart enough to realize how f*cked up this bill is and declare they will not enforce it?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Yeah, I didn't think so.
My concern is that a bunch of them will walk off the job due to "circumstances" and the only people enforcing any sort of law will be the neighborhood gangsters
-
HPD is not capable of doing thousands of house calls. The justice system is not capable of dealing with thousands of additional cases. Not to mention that the optics would be horrible. They can’t throw us all in jail.
No, but they can charge us all with a misdemeanor gun crime, use that as justification for stripping us of our 2A rights, then tell us to turn every gun we own in for destruction.
This is the way they will try to get rid of all private guns -- stepping stones.
-
This is the way they will try to get rid of all private guns -- stepping stones.
That's going to happen anyway, but if someone were to figure out how to jam up the court system with civil disobedience then it would take them a whole lot longer to get around to it and put their incompetence on display.
The reason they are rushing such ambitious and short sighted legislation is that they know they are weak and about to lose control. This is a move of desperation.
But I can see why someone raised in an all-powerful Uniparty State would fall for such a bluff and find it difficult to believe that it the long established power centers are about to get swept away in the tides of history.
-
That's going to happen anyway, but if someone were to figure out how to jam up the court system with civil disobedience then it would take them a whole lot longer to get around to it and put their incompetence on display.
The reason they are rushing such ambitious and short sighted legislation is that they know they are weak and about to lose control. This is a move of desperation.
But I can see why someone raised in an all-powerful Uniparty State would fall for such a bluff and find it difficult to believe that it the long established power centers are about to get swept away in the tides of history.
Good thing I wasn't raised here!
:thumbsup: :geekdanc: :shaka:
-
Good thing I wasn't raised here!
:thumbsup: :geekdanc: :shaka:
You know what I mean. Playing a rigged game is a fool's errand and there's a wide range of options between comply or die.
-
You know what I mean. Playing a rigged game is a fool's errand and there's a wide range of options between comply or die.
Many of those options are moot, since the dealer, the umpire, the ref and the judge are all aligned against us.
That's how the game is rigged, and those "options" are all part of the same game.
The only way to change the outcome short of tipping the board over is to change the people enforcing the rules. Unfortunately, they control that part of the game as well.
-
That's going to happen anyway, but if someone were to figure out how to jam up the court system with civil disobedience then it would take them a whole lot longer to get around to it and put their incompetence on display.
The reason they are rushing such ambitious and short sighted legislation is that they know they are weak and about to lose control. This is a move of desperation.
But I can see why someone raised in an all-powerful Uniparty State would fall for such a bluff and find it difficult to believe that it the long established power centers are about to get swept away in the tides of history.
I think, the reason they are rushing such ambitious and short-sighted legislation is, that judging from the relatively paltry submission of testimony for SB1230, they know Hawaii 2A can be ignored (i.e. Karl Rhoads pushes through whatever he wants regardless of opposing testimony), and judging from how they were successful at pushing SB1230 through, they're just building on that success and piling it on while we're still reeling from the effects of SB1230.
Hawaii is ranked 2nd-worst in the nation for 2A, beat out only by NY, and Karl Rhoads wants to be #1.
based on Guns & Ammo magazine 2023 survey, IIRC.
and, HPD will do as ordered "because of their dental plan."
-
They win because WE have dental plans and would rather keep our cushy lifestyle than stand up in solidarity against tyranny.
The point I’m trying to make is that when it costs $2.50 of federal spending for each dollar of gdp growth that means our cushy lifestyles are about to disappear forever (along with all dollar denominated assets) and collectively we have way less to lose than we think.
-
By making all of these fire arms illegal, it will give organized crime complete control of the market.
Few legit local gun stores will be able to survive only on LE sales.
What a great business opportunity for the black market.
The black market fire arms will be: Unregistered, Unlicensed, Untaxed, Unserialized, and Uncontrolled.
Mexico here we come.
IF he gets out of jail, Miske will find many of his fellow crime bosses enriched by illegal fire arms.
The Hawaii State Legislature: Making Organized Crime Great Again.
If you want something to sell like hot cakes, just make it illegal.
Ronnie Barrett will not like this.HI LE will have to adapt to another platform.
Other companies may follow his lead.
If government keeps treating the law abiding like criminals, there will be no law abiding people.
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/video/2024/01/26/oahu-sees-alarming-rash-destructive-business-break-ins-hpd-response-is-unclear/
The criminal gangs are already getting bold because HPD no longer has the resources to investigate anything but the highest profile crimes. The staffing shortages are not getting better and inflation keeps cutting back their paychecks. How long will it be until 911 goes to a slack key recording?
-
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/video/2024/01/26/oahu-sees-alarming-rash-destructive-business-break-ins-hpd-response-is-unclear/
The criminal gangs are already getting bold because HPD no longer has the resources to investigate anything but the highest profile crimes. The staffing shortages are not getting better and inflation keeps cutting back their paychecks. How long will it be until 911 goes to a slack key recording?
just a couple weeks ago I called 911/hpd bc a homeless guy was sleeping on the corner by my house for 5 days in a row. in the past they have been pretty good at sending a car out to tell someone to leave, but not this time
911 operator says "we will send somebody out there"
ok, 5 hours later, they send nobody
so I have to handle it myself
not only do they do nothing, but puts me in danger now bc I can't just let it go another day
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/video/2024/01/26/oahu-sees-alarming-rash-destructive-business-break-ins-hpd-response-is-unclear/
How long will it be until 911 goes to a slack key recording?
911: If this is a mass shooting Good Luck.
911: If this is an assault we're so sorry.
911: If you are getting raped or sodomized try not to think about it. It will soon be over.
911: If this is a home invasion press "1" to listen to slack key music while you, your loved ones and your house goes to sh*t.
Thank You for calling the 911 hotline.
-
just a couple weeks ago I called 911/hpd bc a homeless guy was sleeping on the corner by my house for 5 days in a row. in the past they have been pretty good at sending a car out to tell someone to leave, but not this time
911 operator says "we will send somebody out there"
ok, 5 hours later, they send nobody
so I have to handle it myself
not only do they do nothing, but puts me in danger now bc I can't just let it go another day
Jack Osborne (Ozzy's son) has a son who goes to a private school. They have $ so it's not a crap private school. THis is in LA. They often have trespassers (homeless) come on campus. The last one, the school called LAPD and it took 5 hours before a cop showed up. So Jack said, unless it's an active shooting, don't count on LAPD to show up quickly.
-
just a couple weeks ago I called 911/hpd bc a homeless guy was sleeping on the corner by my house for 5 days in a row. in the past they have been pretty good at sending a car out to tell someone to leave, but not this time
911 operator says "we will send somebody out there"
ok, 5 hours later, they send nobody
so I have to handle it myself
not only do they do nothing, but puts me in danger now bc I can't just let it go another day
To be reasonable (objective?), that was not an emergency call. And if the guy was on your property, you have the right to tell him to leave.
If he's on the corner (public sidewalk?), then you have to call the cops, and wait ..... and wait.
I know what I'd do. I'd walk up close, take video of him for identification, and if he asks what you're doing, just say it's for a documentary (which is true: it's documentation).
Beyond that, if he's not looking in cars, testing door knobs, or opening mailboxes, sleeping isn't breaking the law.
Maybe he's waiting on a bus, and just fell asleep? :rofl:
Depending on the guy's demeanor, I might offer him some food or water, just to check and see that he's not in physical distress (OD, medical problems, injured). There have been cases of people dying on trains and nobody bothered to check on them as they rode from start to end and back.
Use your best judgement, of course. If he looks like the reincarnation of Charles Manson, best to steer clear and monitor the situation! :thumbsup:
-
To be reasonable (objective?), that was not an emergency call. And if the guy was on your property, you have the right to tell him to leave.
If he's on the corner (public sidewalk?), then you have to call the cops, and wait ..... and wait.
I know what I'd do. I'd walk up close, take video of him for identification, and if he asks what you're doing, just say it's for a documentary (which is true: it's documentation).
Beyond that, if he's not looking in cars, testing door knobs, or opening mailboxes, sleeping isn't breaking the law.
Maybe he's waiting on a bus, and just fell asleep? :rofl:
Depending on the guy's demeanor, I might offer him some food or water, just to check and see that he's not in physical distress (OD, medical problems, injured). There have been cases of people dying on trains and nobody bothered to check on them as they road from start to end and back.
Use your best judgement, of course. If he looks like the reincarnation of Charles Manson, best to steer clear and monitor the situation! :thumbsup:
It’s “rode,” not “road.”
-
It’s “rode,” not “road.”
Yikes! I hop that acidental speling eror didnt impeed ur ability 2 under stand my entyre post.
:geekdanc:
-
Yikes! I hop that acidental speling eror didnt impeed ur ability 2 under stand my entyre post.
:geekdanc:
Oh, so you get to call out minor typos (“python” vs. “pythin”) even if they really don’t matter to the understanding of the post, but if someone else does it to you, time for some snark?
:thumbsup:
-
I've actually got a good feeling about this AWB. After reflecting on it for a little bit I'd say it's the perfect instrument for mobilizing our side. What gun owner DOESN'T this directly effect?
Maybe there's some break barrel italian shotgun snobs out there who DGAF, but if you wanted something that will wake the sleeping giant you couldn't ask for more. :shaka:
-
How are we law-abiding citizens supposed to protect ourselves against criminals, HPD, and Hawaii's government?
Oh, I know. I'll wait until HPD leaves a rifle unattended......
-
How are we law-abiding citizens supposed to protect ourselves against criminals, HPD, and Hawaii's government?
Oh, I know. I'll wait until HPD leaves a rifle unattended......
We know HPD officers have been convicted of drug dealing and discipline is very lax. My guess is if their paychecks start bouncing some things will go missing from the evidence lockers. Or never make it there in the first place.
-
Oh, so you get to call out minor typos (“python” vs. “pythin”) even if they really don’t matter to the understanding of the post, but if someone else does it to you, time for some snark?
:thumbsup:
Why are you raining on my parade? you're picking a fight that's wasn't yours to start with.
Get a life. :geekdanc:
-
pot, meet kettle...
Why are you raining on my parade? you're picking a fight that's wasn't yours to start with.
Get a life. :geekdanc:
-
pot, meet kettle...
Was I talking to you, Mr. Skillet?
-
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
in a country with at least two different sets of rules for law breakers,
why is being an outlaw a bad thing?
:wtf:
-
in a country with at least two different sets of rules for law breakers,
why is being an outlaw a bad thing?
:wtf:
It took the entire police department almost a whole day to put down one psycho driving around with a rifle. Property crime is so bad they stopped investigating it altogether. Don't even get me started on the Lahaina fire response.
Honolulu Hale is still acting like they are omnipotent dictators, but it looks to me like they are not only increasingly powerless but almost totally useless. I'm wondering what comes next to fill the void.
-
Why are you raining on my parade? you're picking a fight that's wasn't yours to start with.
Get a life. :geekdanc:
Because you’re unnecessarily abrasive (to put it mildly), and it’s really tiresome.
There’s a lot of good information on this forum. Unfortunately, it very often gets drowned out by ridiculous, snarky ad hominems about minor typos, or how somebody didn’t take a strong enough opinion on an issue, or how somebody presented information that doesn’t conform closely enough to the orthodoxy.
Want to drive away people who might come here looking to learn about their rights and how to defend them? Constant bickering with people who probably agree on 90%+ of important 2A issues, and “show me where I said that,” and “wrong,” and “you’re stupid” seems like a great way to do it.
:stopjack:
-
nope...
Was I talking to you, Mr. Skillet?
-
I don’t think the state government has the resources to enforce this bill the way it is currently written
-
Because you’re unnecessarily abrasive (to put it mildly), and it’s really tiresome.
There’s a lot of good information on this forum. Unfortunately, it very often gets drowned out by ridiculous, snarky ad hominems about minor typos, or how somebody didn’t take a strong enough opinion on an issue, or how somebody presented information that doesn’t conform closely enough to the orthodoxy.
Want to drive away people who might come here looking to learn about their rights and how to defend them? Constant bickering with people who probably agree on 90%+ of important 2A issues, and “show me where I said that,” and “wrong,” and “you’re stupid” seems like a great way to do it.
:stopjack:
Grow up and put on your big-boy pants. How you feel is not my responsibility.
I bet you loved being hall monitor, huh?
-
Grow up and put on your big-boy pants. How you feel is not my responsibility.
I bet you loved being hall monitor, huh?
Just offering a little constructive criticism to maybe try to make the forum a little more effective at being a source of good 2A info that will reach more folks…
Take it or leave it. :shaka:
-
Just offering a little constructive criticism to maybe try to make the forum a little more effective at being a source of good 2A info that will reach more folks…
Take it or leave it. :shaka:
Maybe you're the one who needs to work on his "abrasiveness."
Which is worse. Teasing someone for making a typo, or complaining that someone is teasing a person other than yourself for pointing out a typo?
Ever hear of making a mountain out of a mole hill?
Sorry if certain comments bother you, but i'm not the only (nor the worst) offender.
Have a nise weakend. :geekdanc:
-
bruh
lul
Grow up and put on your big-boy pants. How you feel is not my responsibility.
I bet you loved being hall monitor, huh?
-
Maybe you're the one who needs to work on his "abrasiveness."
Which is worse. Teasing someone for making a typo, or complaining that someone is teasing a person other than yourself for pointing out a typo?
Ever hear of making a mountain out of a mole hill?
Sorry if certain comments bother you, but i'm not the only (nor the worst) offender.
Have a nise weakend. :geekdanc:
I’m not convinced you are…
-
I’m not convinced you are…
That was me trying to be less abrasive and pretend your feelings matter to me.
See? It doesn't matter what I say, so why even try?
:geekdanc: :rofl: :popcorn:
-
What happened on the 1st of this year should have never happened. That's because the perp should have been in jail instead of roaming free.
Interesting how events like these spurs the government to enact stupid "ban assault weapons" bills instead of directing resources toward making sure pukes like that guy stay incarcerated instead of roaming free.
But no, they do the opposite (and easiest) solution by going after law-abiding citizens who safely and responsibly own firearms.
-
What happened on the 1st of this year should have never happened. That's because the perp should have been in jail instead of roaming free.
Interesting how events like these spurs the government to enact stupid "ban assault weapons" bills instead of directing resources toward making sure pukes like that guy stay incarcerated instead of roaming free.
But no, they do the opposite (and easiest) solution by going after law-abiding citizens who safely and responsibly own firearms.
....
Amen to that.
-
Just a reminder
There have been too many threads in the forum that have been severely derailed by people who cannot have CIVIL discussions with each other.
Any thread with excessive off topic nonsense, pointless bickering, or personal attacks to other forum members will be immediately LOCKED.
Depending on the severity of the personal attack, the person making the off color remarks may be awarded a "point". If too many "points" are earned, you will be banned from the forum.
From: Heavies
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
-
What happened on the 1st of this year should have never happened. That's because the perp should have been in jail instead of roaming free.
Interesting how events like these spurs the government to enact stupid "ban assault weapons" bills instead of directing resources toward making sure pukes like that guy stay incarcerated instead of roaming free.
But no, they do the opposite (and easiest) solution by going after law-abiding citizens who safely and responsibly own firearms.
The long game is to have events like this and more crime so they can take away the 2a.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
The long game is to have events like this and more crime so they can take away the 2a.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Yeah. It sure seems that way. A criminal does a dastardly deed. His record shows multiple past infractions yet he is still out roaming free.
You would think sensible leaders would review this incident and try to fix the problem. Is it lack of resources? Does the laws need to be reviewed? Is the justice system broken?
But no. They go the other route. He had a rifle. Oooooohhhh. evil black rifle. An inanimate object becomes the culprit instead of the living, breathing, and calculating human scum that is holding it.
We need to ban ALL of these evil things. The easiest way is to go after everyday law abiding citizens. They not going give us grief. They going listen.
But the criminals not going listen. So yeah, HPD and all other LE organizations, you guys can keep your evil black guns because you guys have uniforms and went to the acadamy. So you guys are better than the average law abiding tax paying revenue producing mindless sheep we control.
That's ok if they get caught in the crossfire when you battle the bad guys. Get plenty of them out there. No biggie. Oh by the way, get special pricing on 30 rd. mags on Midway.
-
The long game is to have events like this and more crime so they can take away the 2a.
That's why communism always fails. It cannot create things, only corrupt and destroy what someone else created.
-
It's far easier to blame a gun than the entire criminal justice system post-guilt.
On one hand, higher rates of incarceration does little for society as a whole--it's costly, removes the ability for an offender to contribute to society, and statistically results in reincarceration. On the other, prison diversion programs bet on the impossibility that an officer of the court can make an affirmative determination on an offenders risk to the public.
It's hilarious when "one side" claims their system is better, because the reality is that both are severely flawed. Harsh jail sentences as a "deterrent" is scientifically questionable. Sentencing someone to jail for a year or more exposes them to a "life of crime" and resulting sentences for those future offenses. Restorative and rehabilitative justice as alternatives do not work for everyone, and when it fails, it usually has the same compounded effect of incarceration--further damage to society. The problem isn't the "system" really, it's the self-centered culture of America itself. Retail theft decriminalization? Lets steal, because I'm a victim of systemic racism! Can't get a CCW? "Ainokea", I goin carry NEway because "shall not be infringed". It's literally the same mentality on both sides of the spectrum.
If America doesn't find a "sensible middle", this culture of extremes will doom us all. It's also the reason why I don't believe most people would get a meaningful amount of training if we had "constitutional carry"--a phrase which, by the way, is politically branded. There is no state in which you can carry "any gun, anywhere, anytime", even if it has the Constitutionalists politically excited.
-
The problem isn't the "system" really, it's the self-centered culture of America itself. Retail theft decriminalization? Lets steal, because I'm a victim of systemic racism! Can't get a CCW? "Ainokea", I goin carry NEway because "shall not be infringed". It's literally the same mentality on both sides of the spectrum.
If America doesn't find a "sensible middle", this culture of extremes will doom us all. It's also the reason why I don't believe most people would get a meaningful amount of training if we had "constitutional carry"--a phrase which, by the way, is politically branded. There is no state in which you can carry "any gun, anywhere, anytime", even if it has the Constitutionalists politically excited.
There's no sensible middle when the Soros appointed prosecutors decriminalize theft, activist judges award payouts for rioting terrorist groups, and violent criminals on the Merry Go Round of "justice" end up throwing acid on a poor Chinese girl.
That's a concerted effort to destroy our civilization. You can't reason with it.
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/legalized-shoplifting-becomes-a-racket-and-minorities-hardest-hit/
https://thepostmillennial.com/seattle-pays-out-10-million-to-summer-of-love-blm-antifa-agitators
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2024/01/27/breaking-news/victim-idd-in-chemical-attack-near-ala-moana-center/
-
It's far easier to blame a gun than the entire criminal justice system post-guilt.
On one hand, higher rates of incarceration does little for society as a whole--it's costly, removes the ability for an offender to contribute to society, and statistically results in reincarceration. On the other, prison diversion programs bet on the impossibility that an officer of the court can make an affirmative determination on an offenders risk to the public.
It's hilarious when "one side" claims their system is better, because the reality is that both are severely flawed. Harsh jail sentences as a "deterrent" is scientifically questionable. Sentencing someone to jail for a year or more exposes them to a "life of crime" and resulting sentences for those future offenses. Restorative and rehabilitative justice as alternatives do not work for everyone, and when it fails, it usually has the same compounded effect of incarceration--further damage to society. The problem isn't the "system" really, it's the self-centered culture of America itself. Retail theft decriminalization? Lets steal, because I'm a victim of systemic racism! Can't get a CCW? "Ainokea", I goin carry NEway because "shall not be infringed". It's literally the same mentality on both sides of the spectrum.
If America doesn't find a "sensible middle", this culture of extremes will doom us all. It's also the reason why I don't believe most people would get a meaningful amount of training if we had "constitutional carry"--a phrase which, by the way, is politically branded. There is no state in which you can carry "any gun, anywhere, anytime", even if it has the Constitutionalists politically excited.
Constitutional carry refers to the ability to not need a permit to carry a firearm in public. You are the only person I’ve ever heard say “any gun, anywhere , anytime”. This is not the first time you have mischaracterized pro 2A policy.
-
Constitutional carry refers to the ability to not need a permit to carry a firearm in public. You are the only person I’ve ever heard say “any gun, anywhere , anytime”. This is not the first time you have mischaracterized pro 2A policy.
To be more precise, Constitutional Carry means there are no added qualifications for carrying a firearm/handgun in public beyond those qualifications needed to own one. if you can have it (can pass the NICS background check), then you can carry it.
There may be some Constitutional Carry states with restrictions on open carry versus concealed. Open carry allows long guns and handguns to be visibly carried, whereas concealed carry will limit you to handguns only. States that offer the freedom to carry both open and concealed do exist.
As far as permits, most Constitutional Carry states still issue them upon request to facilitate travel to other states which honor your state's CCW permit. Some states have canceled reciprocal agreements with Constitutional Carry states simply because they no longer require CCW classes. It's not a Liberal thing, they just happen to have the training requirement for out of state concealed carriers written into their laws -- for now. Applying for a non-resident permit where you intend to visit is also an option in almost all states. So, if you already have the training they require (some just as simple as being in the military or taking an NRA safety class), the qualifications are already met.
Twenty-six states now offer permit-less and/or Constitutional Carry, and Florida is on the verge of joining them. If all but a couple of states follow this trend, national reciprocity will be just around the corner (IMO).
-
There's no sensible middle when the Soros appointed prosecutors decriminalize theft, activist judges award payouts for rioting terrorist groups, and violent criminals on the Merry Go Round of "justice" end up throwing acid on a poor Chinese girl.
That's a concerted effort to destroy our civilization. You can't reason with it.
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/legalized-shoplifting-becomes-a-racket-and-minorities-hardest-hit/
https://thepostmillennial.com/seattle-pays-out-10-million-to-summer-of-love-blm-antifa-agitators
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2024/01/27/breaking-news/victim-idd-in-chemical-attack-near-ala-moana-center/
The articles you mention are examples of a failed system that is shifted towards leftist policy. However, the alternative you suggest, based on your comment about a "concerted effort to destroy our society", that a heavily retributive justice system will work, is also heavily shifted towards rightist policy.
Sentencing a criminal to jail, especially when they are a minor child, exponentially increases that persons chance of returning to jail and continuing to engage in criminal activity. This could also be considered a "concerted effort to destroy our society" because a system leads to a large portion of society being incarcerated cannot function. There is neither enough money nor prisons to hold all these people, and it's important to mention that someone in prison returns virtually nothing to the economy.
I think the future of punishments will be heavily based on the victims preferences, similar to modern manifestations of restorative justice. This is "balanced". Rather than your opinion, my opinion, the courts opinion, or a pandering politicians opinion, lets ask the victim what they want for the offender. For every "catch and release" case, there is a case where the victim may not want the offender to be initially incarcerated or for incarceration to continue. The court does weigh these opinions, but not nearly enough considering they are the one directly affected by the criminal behavior. Maybe a serial killer avoids the death penalty on a procedural error; that had no effect on the crime, to the dismay of surviving relatives. Maybe a teenager is sentenced to life because they were in the car when their "gangbanger" friend pulled a trigger, when the family of the victim asserts they were not actually an accomplice and was just catching a ride.
The bottom line is you cannot just put people in jail if they commit a crime, because everyone in here would be in jail at some point in their lives; and you cannot just decriminalize a certain type of crime because it's "non-violent". We should let the people (victims) decide punishment, just like a jury decides guilt.
Constitutional carry refers to the ability to not need a permit to carry a firearm in public. You are the only person I’ve ever heard say “any gun, anywhere , anytime”. This is not the first time you have mischaracterized pro 2A policy.
To be more precise, Constitutional Carry means there are no added qualifications for carrying a firearm/handgun in public beyond those qualifications needed to own one. if you can have it (can pass the NICS background check), then you can carry it.
There may be some Constitutional Carry states with restrictions on open carry versus concealed. Open carry allows long guns and handguns to be visibly carried, whereas concealed carry will limit you to handguns only. States that offer the freedom to carry both open and concealed do exist.
As far as permits, most Constitutional Carry states still issue them upon request to facilitate travel to other states which honor your state's CCW permit. Some states have canceled reciprocal agreements with Constitutional Carry states simply because they no longer require CCW classes. It's not a Liberal thing, they just happen to have the training requirement for out of state concealed carriers written into their laws -- for now. Applying for a non-resident permit where you intend to visit is also an option in almost all states. So, if you already have the training they require (some just as simple as being in the military or taking an NRA safety class), the qualifications are already met.
Twenty-six states now offer permit-less and/or Constitutional Carry, and Florida is on the verge of joining them. If all but a couple of states follow this trend, national reciprocity will be just around the corner (IMO).
At least we now acknowledge that laws apply to firearms and it's a matter of opinion on the severity of these laws. I swear not too long ago, people were saying "shall not be infringed" as a rebuttal and "you don't support the 2A" because my opinions on these matters were different.
-
The articles you mention are examples of a failed system that is shifted towards leftist policy. However, the alternative you suggest, based on your comment about a "concerted effort to destroy our society", that a heavily retributive justice system will work, is also heavily shifted towards rightist policy.
Sentencing a criminal to jail, especially when they are a minor child, exponentially increases that persons chance of returning to jail and continuing to engage in criminal activity. This could also be considered a "concerted effort to destroy our society" because a system leads to a large portion of society being incarcerated cannot function. There is neither enough money nor prisons to hold all these people, and it's important to mention that someone in prison returns virtually nothing to the economy.
I think the future of punishments will be heavily based on the victims preferences, similar to modern manifestations of restorative justice. This is "balanced". Rather than your opinion, my opinion, the courts opinion, or a pandering politicians opinion, lets ask the victim what they want for the offender. For every "catch and release" case, there is a case where the victim may not want the offender to be initially incarcerated or for incarceration to continue. The court does weigh these opinions, but not nearly enough considering they are the one directly affected by the criminal behavior. Maybe a serial killer avoids the death penalty on a procedural error; that had no effect on the crime, to the dismay of surviving relatives. Maybe a teenager is sentenced to life because they were in the car when their "gangbanger" friend pulled a trigger, when the family of the victim asserts they were not actually an accomplice and was just catching a ride.
The bottom line is you cannot just put people in jail if they commit a crime, because everyone in here would be in jail at some point in their lives; and you cannot just decriminalize a certain type of crime because it's "non-violent". We should let the people (victims) decide punishment, just like a jury decides guilt.
At least we now acknowledge that laws apply to firearms and it's a matter of opinion on the severity of these laws. I swear not too long ago, people were saying "shall not be infringed" as a rebuttal and "you don't support the 2A" because my opinions on these matters were different.
Then we make each incarceration longer and longer until they are off the streets for the rest of their lives. Maybe those criminals returning to jail do so because there were no disincentives associated with their crimes -- i.e. released time after time with little to no actual time in prison.
Maybe the problem is we've made prisons too comfortable. My brother spent a week in jail for failing to make good on a couple of checks he wrote that bounced. he said that was the worst experience of his life, and that he's never going to go back to jail. It had the intended effect -- negative reinforcement for undesirable behavior.
When you give inmates free medical care (including Viagra), 3 healthy meals a day, pipe in cable TV and house them in air conditioned dorms, most of the prisoners are living in better conditions than they had on the outside. Prison should be a place nobody wants to go back to, but here we are. I'm not saying it should be torture, but it should be less comfortable than it currently is in most places.
Prison sentences are not supposed to be given out in hopes we can fix the prisoner. The 2 basic objectives are (1) removing from them society before they can victimize more people, and (2) punishing them for their crimes so they understand there are consequences for that behavior.
The path to rehabilitation is as varied as the number of individuals in prison. We don't have the resources or even the capability to seriously change criminals' behavior. Taking away someone's freedom is a proven solution for many criminals. They no longer have their homies, their family, their property, etc.
Sometimes just getting someone out of a bad environment is all it takes to give a prisoner the chance to change. Turning them loose on society doesn't offer anyone the 'time out' from their daily lives needed to reflect on what they want from life.
-
Not sure how this thread got derailed, but RE the prison system:
Put the inmates to work.
During the early years of Hawaii history, that's how a lot of stuff got done.
eg. the road to my grandfather's store was built by prisoners. circa 1900.
It's just common sense.
Especially at a time when the city is chronically shorthanded on workers.
There are so many benefits to doing this.
:stopjack:
-
Not sure how this thread got derailed, but RE the prison system:
Put the inmates to work.
During the early years of Hawaii history, that's how a lot of stuff got done.
eg. the road to my grandfather's store was built by prisoners. circa 1900.
It's just common sense.
Especially at a time when the city is chronically shorthanded on workers.
There are so many benefits to doing this.
:stopjack:
unions wouldn't like that
-
It's far easier to blame a gun than the entire criminal justice system post-guilt.
On one hand, higher rates of incarceration does little for society as a whole--it's costly, removes the ability for an offender to contribute to society, and statistically results in reincarceration. On the other, prison diversion programs bet on the impossibility that an officer of the court can make an affirmative determination on an offenders risk to the public.
It's hilarious when "one side" claims their system is better, because the reality is that both are severely flawed. Harsh jail sentences as a "deterrent" is scientifically questionable. Sentencing someone to jail for a year or more exposes them to a "life of crime" and resulting sentences for those future offenses. Restorative and rehabilitative justice as alternatives do not work for everyone, and when it fails, it usually has the same compounded effect of incarceration--further damage to society. The problem isn't the "system" really, it's the self-centered culture of America itself. Retail theft decriminalization? Lets steal, because I'm a victim of systemic racism! Can't get a CCW? "Ainokea", I goin carry NEway because "shall not be infringed". It's literally the same mentality on both sides of the spectrum.
If America doesn't find a "sensible middle", this culture of extremes will doom us all. It's also the reason why I don't believe most people would get a meaningful amount of training if we had "constitutional carry"--a phrase which, by the way, is politically branded. There is no state in which you can carry "any gun, anywhere, anytime", even if it has the Constitutionalists politically excited.
THe reason America cannot find a sensible middle, is because the anti 2a (DNC) doesn't want one. They want it all. But since they cannot get it all at once, they take little by little. Here's what sensible it is:
NICS 20 min background check to buy a gun=OK
HI's 2 weeks to 40 day wait to buy a gun=Not OK
HI's requiring any kind of class to buy a gun or carry one=Not OK
Hi taking 8 months to issue CCW's=Not OK
If you believe in "classes", is a 18hr class requirement OK? How about 40 hrs or 100hrs? Where in you're opinion, do you draw the line?
-
Too much kumbaya culture and overthinking. Trying to appease everyone. Even the perp.
The KISS doctrine applies here. Do the crime. Do the time. Tuff sh*t.
-
unions wouldn't like that
===========
yes I know that...maybe common sense will prevail one day.
That is why the clubs were not allowed to do repairs to the facilities at kokohead.
One of the range officers was painting the KHSC facilities on his own without permission or help.
HRA was allowed to cut kiawe trees to prep for the Shooting Sports Fair a few years ago.
That's why I was surprised when the kokonut coalition was allowed to repair the trail going up to the lookout.
-
At least we now acknowledge that laws apply to firearms and it's a matter of opinion on the severity of these laws. I swear not too long ago, people were saying "shall not be infringed" as a rebuttal and "you don't support the 2A" because my opinions on these matters were different.
I’m acknowledging that there ARE laws, not that I think they are constitutional. You misrepresented “constitutional carry” and I corrected you.
-
Then we make each incarceration longer and longer until they are off the streets for the rest of their lives. Maybe those criminals returning to jail do so because there were no disincentives associated with their crimes -- i.e. released time after time with little to no actual time in prison.
Maybe the problem is we've made prisons too comfortable. My brother spent a week in jail for failing to make good on a couple of checks he wrote that bounced. he said that was the worst experience of his life, and that he's never going to go back to jail. It had the intended effect -- negative reinforcement for undesirable behavior.
Oh, you support California's "Three Strikes Law"? Interesting.
Although you think your bothers week in jail was a "deterrent", have you considered the "shame" he experienced in his social circles as another possible deterrent? We know that execution and life imprisonment do not deter people from criminal acts, that is, we still have people murdering others knowing if they are caught, it could lead to a life sentence. Why do you think that is? What if I told you that it's not punishment (jail and fines) that deter people, but rather the social accountability they have to family, friends, and peers are what keep people from committing crimes? If a persons social circle are a bunch of criminals, going to prison may in fact elevate them in those circles-- the sentence they receive then, serves little as a deterrent. Domestic terrorists are often "disenfranchised individuals" as well.
Not sure how this thread got derailed, but RE the prison system:
Put the inmates to work.
During the early years of Hawaii history, that's how a lot of stuff got done.
eg. the road to my grandfather's store was built by prisoners. circa 1900.
It's just common sense.
Sounds like the North Korean penal system, except that it's not multi-generational. It also sounds like enslaving the natives to perform laborious work for colonialists. Imagine women, children, and the elderly performing forced labor as well.
If you believe in "classes", is a 18hr class requirement OK? How about 40 hrs or 100hrs? Where in you're opinion, do you draw the line?
A live-fire class long enough to demonstrate a draw from concealment and rapid fire at a targets of reasonable self-defense range, say 5ft. 10ft. 15ft. because that's what you will need to do in a self defense situation when your gun is being carried on your person.
I’m acknowledging that there ARE laws, not that I think they are constitutional. You misrepresented “constitutional carry” and I corrected you.
Wait, so you think any laws related to guns are unconstitutional? So, you do believe that you should be able to carry any gun, anywhere, anytime?
-
A live-fire class long enough to demonstrate a draw from concealment and rapid fire at a targets of reasonable self-defense range, say 5ft. 10ft. 15ft. because that's what you will need to do in a self defense situation when your gun is being carried on your person.
U didn't answer my question. When a gun law is made, they cannot put "long enough" in it. So I repeat, how long? You're also forgetting that a class includes book work. How long should this portion be?
-
Wait, so you think any laws related to guns are unconstitutional? So, you do believe that you should be able to carry any gun, anywhere, anytime?
As long as one is a legal gun owner, yes. 1 shou[ld be able to carry a gun anytime and anywhere without the government telling them they cannot. Private property owners can do as they wish.
-
Oh, you support California's "Three Strikes Law"? Interesting.
Although you think your bothers week in jail was a "deterrent", have you considered the "shame" he experienced in his social circles as another possible deterrent? We know that execution and life imprisonment do not deter people from criminal acts, that is, we still have people murdering others knowing if they are caught, it could lead to a life sentence. Why do you think that is? What if I told you that it's not punishment (jail and fines) that deter people, but rather the social accountability they have to family, friends, and peers are what keep people from committing crimes? If a persons social circle are a bunch of criminals, going to prison may in fact elevate them in those circles-- the sentence they receive then, serves little as a deterrent. Domestic terrorists are often "disenfranchised individuals" as well.
Sounds like the North Korean penal system, except that it's not multi-generational. It also sounds like enslaving the natives to perform laborious work for colonialists. Imagine women, children, and the elderly performing forced labor as well.
A live-fire class long enough to demonstrate a draw from concealment and rapid fire at a targets of reasonable self-defense range, say 5ft. 10ft. 15ft. because that's what you will need to do in a self defense situation when your gun is being carried on your person.
Wait, so you think any laws related to guns are unconstitutional? So, you do believe that you should be able to carry any gun, anywhere, anytime?
STOP TELLING US WHAT WE BELIEVE OR SUPPORT UNLESS WE SAY SO. Are you daft?
ASK if I support CA 3 strikes laws -- don't just assume. :wtf:
As for my brother, were you there to bail him out like my mother and I were? IF not, don't try to hypothesize what he was thinking, I know what he SAID.
As for execution and life in prison, it absolutely DOES deter people from criminal acts. It's a proven fact that every single person executed has never committed another crime. :thumbsup:
Do executions and life sentences deter ALL capital crimes? Of course not, but there's no way to know whether or not someone decided against murder or rape based on the potential consequences. Nowadays, so many skate on technicalities and insanity defenses, I believe that causes more violent crimes than you'd think. If there's a 0% chance you'll be free if caught versus a 50% chance, which is more of a deterrent?
As for "forced labor," isn't that what we all experience? If you want an income, a decent standard of living, a nice car, maybe a house, etc., aren't you being forced to work? Sure, a small group might start their own companies, but the vast majority have to work for others. Where would the markets be if everyone was a company owner and there were no workers to hire?
Great, you have a standard you believe is adequate to qualify people to concealed carry. You didn't state a number of hours for the class. You also only focused on the manual of arms and marksmanship requirements. The state also requires training in mental health self-evaluation, reporting, and treatment. It also requires training on the laws of the federal, state, and city/county so gun toters know what's permissible and what will get their gun rights stripped from them if they get caught not following every single gun law.
And don't forget the cost. When you have to fork out $200 for a handgun safety class, another $200 for a CCW class, and the ever-increasing CCW application fees, they have essentially priced CCW out of reach of many. It's the poorest among us who have few options on where they live and when they work. Those are the people more likely to live and travel through the areas with the worst crime. These requirements of yours prevent them from legally being armed when walking to the bus stop at 4:30 AM or from the bus stop at 12:30AM. But, as long as YOU feel safer, that's all that matters.
After buying a handgun, holster, ammo to practice and carry, maybe an extra mag, some range accessories, paying for range time, and a secure way to store the weapon, you really think poor people will be able to afford your training? i highly doubt it.
If you care about safety, how about offering a free handgun storage box/safe for first time gun buyers? Maybe instead of mandating safe storage in homes with kids, we should actually enable everyone who needs it to own a pistol safe.
As for safety in public when a CCW owner discharges their firearm, it's a statistical fact that CCW carriers who engage bad guys have a much, much lower number of collateral injuries than the well-trained, often-tested, professionls of Law Enforcement. So, I really don't see that there's a crisis of people walking around with guns without proper training. I guarantee you a majority have had training -- self selected classes, military training, law enforcement, family members, friends, ... If all you seemingly care about is being able to draw a pistol and hit a "target" that's a threat, then that doesn't take more than an hour at the most. The rest is practice, which you don;t get in a class unless you opt for one on your own dime like Front Sight.
And your little strawman comment "Wait, so you think any laws related to guns are unconstitutional? So, you do believe that you should be able to carry any gun, anywhere, anytime?" is just that. You're trying to start an argument over something nobody here has said.
-
U didn't answer my question. When a gun law is made, they cannot put "long enough" in it. So I repeat, how long? You're also forgetting that a class includes book work. How long should this portion be?
"So I repeat..." :rofl:
The CCW class should be a live-fire testing session where the applicant can demonstrate a draw from concealment and deploy 5 rounds into a target at distances between 5 and 15 feet. That sounds like a realistic scenario.
I don't care about the written test. If you pass the test, you pass. I think "hourly requirements" are silly. Study on your own time or take a "prep" class if you need to. FWIW, and feel free to make assumptions, I finished my Civil Service Exam about 5th, and my rifle permit test 1st. Those tests are so easy and based on common sense that if someone can't pass it, I honestly don't feel bad.
STOP TELLING US WHAT WE BELIEVE OR SUPPORT UNLESS WE SAY SO. Are you daft?
Cont....
I suppose it was only a matter of time before I get the CAPSLOCK treatment.
What you are referring to is called "Hedonic Calculus". Not going to touch anything else you've said. :shaka:
-
"So I repeat..." :rofl:
The CCW class should be a live-fire testing session where the applicant can demonstrate a draw from concealment and deploy 5 rounds into a target at distances between 5 and 15 feet. That sounds like a realistic scenario.
I don't care about the written test. If you pass the test, you pass. I think "hourly requirements" are silly. Study on your own time or take a "prep" class if you need to. FWIW, and feel free to make assumptions, I finished my Civil Service Exam about 5th, and my rifle permit test 1st. Those tests are so easy and based on common sense that if someone can't pass it, I honestly don't feel bad.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before I get the CAPSLOCK treatment.
What you are referring to is called "Hedonic Calculus". Not going to touch anything else you've said. :shaka:
You're not here to discuss the topic ... obviously.
I didn't write all of that because I care what you think. i wrote it so everyone else can read it and decide for themselves which of us has a better grasp of the problems and solutions.
:geekdanc: :popcorn:
Pro tip: you can ignore someone on the internet without having to post you are ignoring them.
:rofl:
-
You're not here to discuss the topic ... obviously.
I didn't write all of that because I care what you think. i wrote it so everyone else can read it and decide for themselves which of us has a better grasp of the problems and solutions.
:geekdanc: :popcorn:
Pro tip: you can ignore someone on the internet without having to post you are ignoring them.
:rofl:
Well, I mean you got really upset (starting yelling over the interwebs via. capslock) when I said you believe in "increasing penalties for repeat offenders", because you said "When we make each incarceration longer and longer until they are off the streets for the rest of their lives", which is exactly what Cali's three-strikes law aimed to do. It's clear that you will think whatever you want to think and that's cool with me. I think maybe you got upset because Cali is the devil and you accidentally agreed with a policy made in California.
I care what other people think, because I believe this forum is for exchanging information. I don't care about farming "likes", so whether more people "like" your comments or mine doesn't matter to me. What matters is that maybe, just maybe, there is another way of thinking. That's what I aimed to do in my comments about your bother. You said you believe that he's scared of potential penalties for continued criminal offenses because that's what he said. I just suggested, that it may be something else. Perhaps it's that your bother is really afraid of being shunned by his friends, family, and community, that makes him discontinue offences, even if he thinks the reason he will not further offend is due retributive penalties. A convicted criminal like your brother who is apparently not disenfranchised is different from criminals who are. Imagine if your bother had no family, community, or friends who are not criminals. It would be a different case, no?
I'm not ignoring you, if you're keeping score. I was avoiding interaction with you because you seemed really upset, you know, a de-escalation tactic. You response appeared as if you were waiting for, and perhaps wanting, a confrontation.
-
says the guy that always says he has aieahound on ignore...
Pro tip: you can ignore someone on the internet without having to post you are ignoring them.
:rofl:
-
unions wouldn't like that
Prisoners can work the farms for cheap labor instead of bringing immigrants. Repay their debts
-
Well, I mean you got really upset (starting yelling over the interwebs via. capslock) when I said you believe in "increasing penalties for repeat offenders", because you said "When we make each incarceration longer and longer until they are off the streets for the rest of their lives", which is exactly what Cali's three-strikes law aimed to do. It's clear that you will think whatever you want to think and that's cool with me. I think maybe you got upset because Cali is the devil and you accidentally agreed with a policy made in California.
I care what other people think, because I believe this forum is for exchanging information. I don't care about farming "likes", so whether more people "like" your comments or mine doesn't matter to me. What matters is that maybe, just maybe, there is another way of thinking. That's what I aimed to do in my comments about your bother. You said you believe that he's scared of potential penalties for continued criminal offenses because that's what he said. I just suggested, that it may be something else. Perhaps it's that your bother is really afraid of being shunned by his friends, family, and community, that makes him discontinue offences, even if he thinks the reason he will not further offend is due retributive penalties. A convicted criminal like your brother who is apparently not disenfranchised is different from criminals who are. Imagine if your bother had no family, community, or friends who are not criminals. It would be a different case, no?
I'm not ignoring you, if you're keeping score. I was avoiding interaction with you because you seemed really upset, you know, a de-escalation tactic. You response appeared as if you were waiting for, and perhaps wanting, a confrontation.
LOL! There you go again -- telling me what I feel. you just can't help it, huh? I wasn't upset -- it was an attention getter -- which obviously worked. :geekdanc: Too bad you were more concerned with the delivery than the message.
Just because a particular thought is different doesn't mean it's better. Your thoughts are not new. I have a feeling i've lived through more government administrations than you have. Your "ideas' have been tried, and this is where it's gotten us.
Your comments about my brother are pure hypothetical nonsense. First you tell me what my brother might have felt (totally wrong), and now you want to theorize that without family, etc, he would have had a different opinion of incarceration. You're falling into the same liberal mindset that got us here. Rather than treat everyone as an individual, you want to pigeonhole criminals based on their circumstances and decide what's best for them as a group.
What do you think would have been a better punishment for my brother? He was given 6 months to pay less than $400 in restitution and court costs. When he didn't, he was jailed for contempt of court. My mother couldn't bail him out on Monday because she got paid on Thursday. I came home from college for that holiday weekend, and had i not, my mother would have been short the funds to get him out. She brought the amount he said he owed, but he didn't think about the court costs -- and they wouldn't take a check (would have been ironic in a bounced check case).
Tell me, what does your sense of fairness and "crime prevention" prescribe for that scenario?
-
says the guy that always says he has aieahound on ignore...
Doesn't make the statement less true, does it?
-
"So I repeat..." :rofl:
The CCW class should be a live-fire testing session where the applicant can demonstrate a draw from concealment and deploy 5 rounds into a target at distances between 5 and 15 feet. That sounds like a realistic scenario.
I don't care about the written test. If you pass the test, you pass. I think "hourly requirements" are silly. Study on your own time or take a "prep" class if you need to. FWIW, and feel free to make assumptions, I finished my Civil Service Exam about 5th, and my rifle permit test 1st. Those tests are so easy and based on common sense that if someone can't pass it, I honestly don't feel bad.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before I get the CAPSLOCK treatment.
What you are referring to is called "Hedonic Calculus". Not going to touch anything else you've said. :shaka:
"So I repeat", is a bad example because you weren't clear on what you feel requirements for a CCW should be. U just wrote distances.
But now you put get all 5 hits at each distance, which means pass with 100%. So had I asked again about what you now wrote, "I repeat" can be used without coming off like a know it all.
What kind of target? A 6 inch circle or a 15 foot circle? Again, think before you post as this is what YOU want and feel others should be doing. Which you are being asked to provide detailed examples. Or you're no better than when Moms Demand Action states they want "common sense gun laws". Then when you ask their members, what, what they state is already law or they have no clue what "common sense gun laws are".
The issue with your requirements is that FBI data states 21 feet. So now you're requirement would be considered under par by the anti 2a lawmakers and HPD if they choose to use statistics and not feelings.
Finally, you're OK with learning book stuff like law, mental health, gun safety "on your own time", but shooting has to be certified and required.
In the end, I don't think you will change your mind on the requirement, but what I'm doing is providing very plausible things that maybe you never thought about.
I'm trying to point out how requirements that you feel are needed has holes in it.
Now here's the kicker, what if our anti 2a lawmakers what to make the shooting test harder? Would you be OK with that? Once you open the door for a "requirement", then this can always be changed.
-
You guys ever watch YT channel TheRealLarryLawton? He finds our current prison system doesn't rehabilitate people, but makes it worst. But he never states what he would change. Since doing what we're doing isn't working due to our over 70% re-offending rate, maybe we need to try something different and see how that turns out.
Although he never directly states it, he leads on that we should be treating prisoners better than how they're currently being treated. He always brings up how the guards (CO's) would kick his ass or keep him in the hole, or lose things, etc...Which I disagree with, but I was never in, so it would be nice if he discusses why he thinks it would be better.
What about more capital punishments and like. A thief with 1 arm missing will have a harder time stealing. Same goes with drug dealers/users. But then I'm pretty sure this would make it more difficult for cops to arrest people since they know what the punishment will be.
Or is what we're currently doing the best option as both above would make things worst?
-
If you provide a secure environment for business to operate then jobs get created and there are fewer criminals. That’s what the corporate communists are trying to destroy. Tear down the system and replace it with totalitarianism. Take away our guns and make us beg them to restore order. Only it will be the New World Order
That's the plan anyway, but it will fail like all their other plans and result in chaos.
https://www.activistpost.com/2024/01/homelessness-in-the-u-s-is-up-48-percent-since-2015-and-americans-are-being-laid-off-in-droves.html
-
As long as one is a legal gun owner, yes. 1 shou[ld be able to carry a gun anytime and anywhere without the government telling them they cannot. Private property owners can do as they wish.
As long as one is a "legal" gun owner. So, there are... laws regulating gun ownership?
As you can see, everyone here, probably acknowledges that there should be laws regarding gun ownership!
So, it's not really an issue of a literal interpretation of the 2A, just a difference in opinion regarding the laws of gun ownership. I wonder, then, why it is, when my opinion on the nature of laws regarding gun ownership differs from others, people tell me "shall not be infringed" or "you don't support the 2A" and in essence, "why are you on this forum"?
EDIT: 2A is "keep" and "bear". If laws can be made for "keep", why not "bear"? Also, what happens if you're in the military and then you tell the armorer that your 2A allows you to carry any gun you want, not the ones they wish to issue you?
-
As long as one is a "legal" gun owner. So, there are... laws regulating gun ownership?
As you can see, everyone here, probably acknowledges that there should be laws regarding gun ownership!
So, it's not really an issue of a literal interpretation of the 2A, just a difference in opinion regarding the laws of gun ownership. I wonder, then, why it is, when my opinion on the nature of laws regarding gun ownership differs from others, people tell me "shall not be infringed" or "you don't support the 2A" and in essence, "why are you on this forum"?
EDIT: 2A is "keep" and "bear". If laws can be made for "keep", why not "bear"? Also, what happens if you're in the military and then you tell the armorer that your 2A allows you to carry any gun you want, not the ones they wish to issue you?
Your requirement means that a person with a clean record cannot carry a gun outside the home. Essentially, doing what HI did by saying you have no 2A once you leave your front door (prior to Buren). That is the big difference.
I never said that there's anything wrong with different opinions of gun ownership. Just your current one in this thread and Kit's thread.
-
LOL! There you go again -- telling me what I feel. you just can't help it, huh? I wasn't upset -- it was an attention getter -- which obviously worked. :geekdanc: Too bad you were more concerned with the delivery than the message.
Just because a particular thought is different doesn't mean it's better. Your thoughts are not new. I have a feeling i've lived through more government administrations than you have. Your "ideas' have been tried, and this is where it's gotten us.
Your comments about my brother are pure hypothetical nonsense. First you tell me what my brother might have felt (totally wrong), and now you want to theorize that without family, etc, he would have had a different opinion of incarceration. You're falling into the same liberal mindset that got us here. Rather than treat everyone as an individual, you want to pigeonhole criminals based on their circumstances and decide what's best for them as a group.
What do you think would have been a better punishment for my brother? He was given 6 months to pay less than $400 in restitution and court costs. When he didn't, he was jailed for contempt of court. My mother couldn't bail him out on Monday because she got paid on Thursday. I came home from college for that holiday weekend, and had i not, my mother would have been short the funds to get him out. She brought the amount he said he owed, but he didn't think about the court costs -- and they wouldn't take a check (would have been ironic in a bounced check case).
Tell me, what does your sense of fairness and "crime prevention" prescribe for that scenario?
Actually, not only just "hypothetical nonsense", but they're based on science. "Social Control Theory".
Based on what you have said about you, your brother, and mother, suggests that your social bonds and social controls are stronger than in other cases. I'm just trying to illustrate that thinking "harsh jail sentences" are the only thing that prevents people from committing crimes is an extremely outdated method of thinking. Once upon a time, we thought every crime was a crime against "god" and that when people committed crimes they were under the control of "demons". In some lesser developed places in the world, they still have this method of thinking.
-
Actually, not only just "hypothetical nonsense", but they're based on science. "Social Control Theory".
Based on what you have said about you, your brother, and mother, suggests that your social bonds and social controls are stronger than in other cases. I'm just trying to illustrate that thinking "harsh jail sentences" are the only thing that prevents people from committing crimes is an extremely outdated method of thinking. Once upon a time, we thought every crime was a crime against "god" and that when people committed crimes they were under the control of "demons". In some lesser developed places in the world, they still have this method of thinking.
Nobody said that, so why are you "illustrating" anything?
-
As for execution and life in prison, it absolutely DOES deter people from criminal acts. It's a proven fact that every single person executed has never committed another crime. :thumbsup:
Do executions and life sentences deter ALL capital crimes? Of course not, but there's no way to know whether or not someone decided against murder or rape based on the potential consequences.
Nobody said that, so why are you "illustrating" anything?
Well, you're very hard to understand sometimes--it does deter (assuming corpses can be deterred from engaging in further action); but it's impossible to know if anything deters. I have to "illustrate", because when I attempt to bring science into the picture, you never seem to acknowledge it, yet you refer to elements of criminology in some of your posts even if you don't know the technical terms for those things by name. "Hedonic Calculus"; "Social Control Theory" etc. have you tried reading into those things, or have you already made up your mind?
If a couple sentences are "word salad", I don't imagine giving you access to a study posted to an academic journal will be of much value to you. You rejected my thoughts, even told me you don't care what I think (and that you're older than me, for whatever reason), so I think it's best to say that you've made up your mind.
-
Stack bot
You are creating a false dichotomy. There are plenty of options between our current practice of letting ‘em all out vs torture chambers and reinstatement of the death penalty. I’m curious if you just don’t get what’s going on with our institutional failure or are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters.
-
Stack bot
You are creating a false dichotomy. There are plenty of options between our current practice of letting ‘em all out vs torture chambers and reinstatement of the death penalty. I’m curious if you just don’t get what’s going on with our institutional failure or are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters.
Calling someone a "bot" is an incredibly unsophisticated, low IQ insult.
Ironic you're saying I created a false dichotomy on a forum where anyone who doesn't wholly agree with the popularist majority is shunned as an outcast. This becomes even more clear when you refer to my posts as "muddying the water", as if I'm trying to keep you from peering into your scrying pool to find comfort in your narrow world view when in reality all I am trying to do is open up intellectual discussions with my academic insights.
-
Ironic you're saying I created a false dichotomy on a forum where anyone who doesn't wholly agree with the popularist majority is shunned as an outcast. This becomes even more clear when you refer to my posts as "muddying the water", as if I'm trying to keep you from peering into your scrying pool to find comfort in your narrow world view when in reality all I am trying to do is open up intellectual discussions with my academic insights.
This is not true. I have disagreed with others here over the years and when challenged to show how I came about, it was either accepted (i was right) or not accepted and I admitted I was wrong. Which means my logic was backed up by evidence or it was wrong as my evidence wasn't good.
Then there were situations where I went based solely on feelings and stated the why. No one has ever shunned me or made fun of me.
It comes down to how you reply when challenged. If you show no evidence or it's wrong and continue to dig a deeper hole, then what happens happens.
So instead of blaming "group thought" or things like that, maybe you need to look at yourself instead.
What this forum does use well is logic over feelings. There have been many postings that lacked logic and yet the person refuses to admit they are wrong. This is when we see threads going on and on and on. Go look back and read any thread in the political section that has more than 20 pages. Read from page 1 to the end. Example: The person posted a link and only read the first few sentences. Only to read the entire page, their statement was entirely wrong and the link they posted to support their view actually didn't support it. Then said person refused to admit they were wrong. And on and on and on.
-
Calling someone a "bot" is an incredibly unsophisticated, low IQ insult.
Not if it's true. I can't peer through the computer and see what's going on but what I can say is your arguments come off a lot like a propagandizing chat bot.
"...as if I'm trying to keep you from peering into your scrying pool to find comfort in your narrow world view when in reality all I am trying to do is open up intellectual discussions with my academic insights."
Who talks like that anyway?
-
Well, you're very hard to understand sometimes--it does deter (assuming corpses can be deterred from engaging in further action); but it's impossible to know if anything deters. I have to "illustrate", because when I attempt to bring science into the picture, you never seem to acknowledge it, yet you refer to elements of criminology in some of your posts even if you don't know the technical terms for those things by name. "Hedonic Calculus"; "Social Control Theory" etc. have you tried reading into those things, or have you already made up your mind?
If a couple sentences are "word salad", I don't imagine giving you access to a study posted to an academic journal will be of much value to you. You rejected my thoughts, even told me you don't care what I think (and that you're older than me, for whatever reason), so I think it's best to say that you've made up your mind.
So, rather than attempt a dialogue, you see this is a contest where the end game is to convince me you're right and i'm wrong.
Do you even care how unproductive and abrasive your attitude is?
i never said I don't care what you think. What I wrote was. "I didn't write all of that because I care what you think. i wrote it so everyone else can read it and decide for themselves which of us has a better grasp of the problems and solutions."
Once again you assumed what i meant instead of reading what I wrote.
-
As long as one is a "legal" gun owner. So, there are... laws regulating gun ownership?
As you can see, everyone here, probably acknowledges that there should be laws regarding gun ownership!
So, it's not really an issue of a literal interpretation of the 2A, just a difference in opinion regarding the laws of gun ownership. I wonder, then, why it is, when my opinion on the nature of laws regarding gun ownership differs from others, people tell me "shall not be infringed" or "you don't support the 2A" and in essence, "why are you on this forum"?
EDIT: 2A is "keep" and "bear". If laws can be made for "keep", why not "bear"? Also, what happens if you're in the military and then you tell the armorer that your 2A allows you to carry any gun you want, not the ones they wish to issue you?
Your ideas are nothing new. Basically what your kind does is they find one teeny weeny little gun law (like background checks) then use that one law as a way to justify a multitude of different laws that satisfy your feelings. Kinda like Biden does when he talks about gun control. 2A supporters are done playing those games. What you don’t realize is that someone further left than you will take your “common sense gun control” and double it and give it to the next generation of gun owners. No thank you.