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.

 

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. 

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. 

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.   

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.   

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?

 

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.