army vet denied right to own gun due to ...

[Hatuey]

As predicted, you continue on with the yawn fest.

Have you ever, btw, actually commented on the subject of the thread?

Trying to change the subject? I did. First post I made. Now, about Norway - which you seem to not know anything about because you don't live there.

 

[Arbo]

Trying to change the subject?

You are the one that did that. But thanks yet again for the continued boring spin.

 

[Hatuey]

You are the one that did that. But thanks yet again for the continued boring spin.

Must I school you again in the art of following a conversation? We've done this before Arbo. I'm more than willing to bring up all the posts I've made in this thread to show you just how ignorant you are about everything from improving the US justice system to what goes on Norway.

How about this, I'll challenge you to a real DP debate on what is the best way to deal with the general inconsistencies in the US justice system. You can argue "KILL THEM!" and I can argue what every other person in this thread seems to be in favor of.

 

[Arbo]

Must I school you again

There would have to be a first time in order for there to later be an 'again'. Congrats yet again on derailing a thread about a vet denied their rights. Heaven forbid you let such a discussion ever happen, those horrible evil vets.

 

[Hatuey]

There would have to be a first time in order for there to later be an 'again'. Congrats yet again on derailing a thread about a vet denied their rights. Heaven forbid you let such a discussion ever happen, those horrible evil vets.

Somebody's trying to make up a strawman again. So Arbo, I'm guessing you won't take me up on a true debate?

 

[Arbo]

Somebody's trying to make up a strawman again.

You have already done your job and derailed a thread with a topic you disapprove of, and now continue on and on with boring crap. Time to take a break before you burst a vein.

 

[Hatuey]

You have already done your job and derailed a thread with a topic you disapprove of, and now continue on and on with boring crap. Time to take a break before you burst a vein.

8th post and still can't own up to not knowing what it is you're talking about.

 

[Arbo]

8th post and still can't own up to not knowing what it is you're talking about.

Are you in denial that you have successfully derailed a thread? Oh my.

 

[Hatuey]

Are you in denial that you have successfully derailed a thread? Oh my.

9th post. Still won't admit you don't know the first thing about Norway.

 

[Arbo]

9th post. Still won't admit you don't know the first thing about Norway.

I understand you do not wish to address your derailing of the thread. You don't need to continue restating that.

 

[CalGun]

I wonder what is being left out of the story. Even the oft hated California and its ridiculous gun laws only ban firearms for those guilty of violent or gun related crimes. The case, as presented, would not even deny a man in CA so why would the FEDS be denying him? Something doesn't pass the sniffer test.

Is that the law in Texas? A minor drug charge? I bet there is more to this story. I dont believe violent felons should ever be allowed to own a firearm, but someone with a minor drug thing should.

 

[Hatuey]

I understand you do not wish to address your derailing of the thread. You don't need to continue restating that.

I did adress it. Then I adressed a post by another poster. You didn't like what was said and then spouted ignorance. Then you, like the coward you are, ran away from my challenge to a real debate on the subject which the other poster and I were discussing. :shrug:

 

[Arbo]

I did adress it. Then I adressed a post by another poster. You didn't like what was said and then spouted ignorance. Then you, like the coward you are, ran away from my challenge to a real debate on the subject which the other poster and I were discussing. :shrug:

Yawn... again.

 

[Arbo]

I wonder what is being left out of the story. Even the oft hated California and its ridiculous gun laws only ban firearms for those guilty of violent or gun related crimes. The case, as presented, would not even deny a man in CA so why would the FEDS be denying him? Something doesn't pass the sniffer test.

Would be nice to hear more on the story, as certainly something seems fishy. Perhaps we will hear more and can discuss the actual topic of the thread.

 

[Hatuey]

Yawn... again.

11th post and you still won't own up to your ignorance. Well, good job Arbo. You didn't disappoint.

 

[Arbo]

11th post and you still won't own up to your ignorance. Well, good job Arbo. You didn't disappoint.

You really need a hobby. Bye worthless poster.

 

[chuck71]

Hey, you sound exactly like somebody who knows nothing about what they're talking about. Tell us, how does the Norwegian system work? Do you think he'll get out once his sentence is over? Please tell me you do. So I can expose your Einsteinian level of infinite ignorance.

:mrgreen: Once your sentence is over you either get out or your dead! That's an interesting phrase 'Einsteinian level of ignorance'. Do you mean to the extent that Albert was brilliant, to the equal extent Arbo is ignorant?

 

[chuck71]

he'll never see the outside world again... it's just that Norway doesn't give long sentences, they just keep extending short ones for the heinous ones.

:mrgreen: How does that work? Does he keep coming up for parole with the guarantee he'll be rejected? Kinda like the manson girls, Susan Atkins...etc....?

 

[ttwtt78640]

:mrgreen: How does that work? Does he keep coming up for parole with the guarantee he'll be rejected? Kinda like the manson girls, Susan Atkins...etc....?

More like John Hinckley, Jr. the never quite ready for prime-time player.

 

[chuck71]

Says who? We could easily adopt a civilized country's justice system. Maybe Norway's or at the very least take these steps.

1. Focus on ensuring first time small crime offenders don't reoffend.
2. Separate convicts according to crimes - meaning: ensure hard criminals are not housed with non-violent criminals.
3. Remove the private corporation element to prison. Sure, give contracts for building them but ensure prisons are run by federal employees and not private companies.
4. Creating worthwhile learning programs for convicts. None of this "theater program" nonsense. Teach them something they can use once they get out.

Those 4 steps alone are just common sense to fixing the system.

:mrgreen: You sure got it right on step 3. The private corporation element turns prisons into 'Big Business' and prisoners into 'Commodities'!

 

[chuck71]

Can you give us a 100% guarantee YOU wont go postal this month? I didn't think so.

:mrgreen: Someone please explain to me what it means to "Go Postal". Sorry to seem naïve.

 

[Moot]

Army Vet Denied Right To Own Gun Due To 42-Year-Old Misdemeanor Drug Charge « CBS Houston

The article says the vet's drug charges occured while he was still a minor in HS. So how can a minor offense that occured when someone was still a minor be used against him as an adult at all? Wasn't that the point of having separate laws for minors and adults?

More stupidity as we go along. Just think of all the data they track about everyone now they can use to continue to deny people their rights.

It's mind boggling. When I was growing up authority figures always threatened me saying, "that'll go on your permanent record". But I didn't believe them. But things have changed so much and so fast, I have to believe there is such thing as a permanent record now. Or is there?

 

[chuck71]

You can't reason with arm chair judges who want to be tough on crime. Their counterarguments are strictly about "BUT BUT RAPISTS"! Few of them know the first thing about prison and see something like having a prison library as making punishment into a vacation. They don't for a minute stop to think about the consequences of being tough on crime for the sake of punishment and pain. Some of these people even rise up and become legislators. Which is how we've ended up with a justice system which doesn't take a single social study of prisons into consideration.

These people also ensure that treatment of offenders is light years ahead in Nordic countries. Also, they, Nordic countries, have somehow managed to make what the US finds impossible: Stop most people from reoffending. So how is it they've done it? They haven't made prisons into daycares for criminals. They've basically allowed the average criminal to develop social skills and work ethics that they didn't learn outside.

:mrgreen: G. Gordon Liddy says when he was in a Correctional Facility he wasn't corrected about anything. And he wasn't monitored by Correctional Officers, he was guarded by Guards.

 

[chuck71]

No, I use this thing called a search engine. You should try it some time, before shooting your mouth off like you're somebody.
link

You should also know that criminals aren't going to use top of the line, high quality firearms. They're going to use what they can get. 38 caliber revolvers fall into favor because they're cheap, they're plentiful, and they've been around for a very long time, making it easier to scoop one off the streets.

:mrgreen: Not to mention, they don't leave shell casings.

 

[chuck71]

I wouldn't be. We now allow guys with tattoos up the side of their necks. That use to be a huge no no. We take anyone for the enlisted ranks.

:mrgreen: Are earrings allowed on guys yet? 'Cus when I was in the Navy as soon as liberty time came and you stepped off the boat, on went the earring(s).