Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

232 Excellent

About frankendat

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Cars
    Relax...I got an angle.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There are sections of your reasoning where we are in complete agreement and sections that are fundamentally flawed. If you dig into the early history of the United States, the assumption, quoted above, is unequivocally proven false. The settlers came to the United States to be free from tyranny. The founders were keenly aware of the dangers of a tyrannical government and cast language in the Constitution to prevent it. The framers included the freedom to organize an armed militia and an armed citizenry, as a method of revolution. The founders believed in their new government, but did not discount the tendency of government to over reach. Armed militia and armed citizens, were intended to possess the same weaponry as the military. Take note, here is where I agree with gun control legislation: I am fine with the registration, licenses, background checks for fully automatic machine guns and concede rocket launchers, land mines, hand grenades, and the like, should not be available for purchase, but the buck stops there. The founders would certainly be horrified by the degradation of the first amendment, not because of vulgarities often and openly expressed, but the failure of citizens to address it. In early America, offensive remarks would be met by challenge of pistols at dawn. As I have mentioned, before subsequent policies undermined application, the “Fighting words” doctrine created a defense against charge of unlawful battery. The perception? Aren’t we watching the reality of police failing to engage, failing to control, failing to protect and retreating, when confronted by mostly unarmed individuals. Lucky there are not more armed rioters, the police might pack up and leave the state. Agreed. The system is flawed and often fails to protect THEREFORE it is incumbent on the individual to insure the safety of himself and his family. This is the challenge of crime in a free society. For punishment or restriction of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution a crime must be committed and guilt proven in accordance with due process . Infringement on these principles will ultimately result in tyranny. If you think it through, the flaws are apparent. For example, it would be murder to kill the rioters, marching and carrying signs that call for violence. Self defense (as exemption against a charge of murder) would not apply. Why? Is there evidence to support the written and chanted threats are delivered in jest or disingenuous? It would be murder, because self defense is only available to those in immediate fear for life. Self defense is only available to protect against the crime of murder, therefore, the elements of murder must be met. Although often aggravating, the rationale is clear, loss of liberty, based on speculation, conjecture, or premonition is contrary to the goal of a free society.
  2. Wow, disregard for Constitution, acceptance of the dynamic term assault weapon, attempt to muddle the discussion by suggesting freedom should be predicated on need or wealth, misdirection through application of alternative facts, someone has been brushing up on bullshit. Allow me to retort— First, rhetoric for rhetoric, I would type it all out, but here is the NRA’s answer: https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/assault-weapons-large-magazines/ Likely, the link, if you bother, will persuade you as much as your comments persuades me, but I will not give up, so easily. The assault weapon ban was troublesome in its original form, because of the methods defining “assault weapon”. The new Democrat revised ban, adds additional ambiguous terms and it will not deter crime. This is known, by those wanting to bring it back into law and used as an argument for the introduction of provisions for firearm relinquishment. As for “Why” a firearm is needed, why is freedom of speech needed? Why is due process needed? A brief look at international news provides a plethora of examples of injustice forced upon the unarmed. Anyone watching current events will be bombarded with examples of police failing to uphold law and protect citizenry. A grim reminder that the best protection for you and your family is competence with a firearm. If you do not recognize that importance, then I wish you, best of luck. Addressing the alternative facts hypothetical: The addition of “threatened you in the past”. If someone makes a credible threat of violence against you or your family and you have reason that they are capable of action on that threat. In Idaho, that is the crime of assault (term is often different in other jurisdictions). A crime that can be litigated and punished IF FOUND GUILTY. Part of the adulation of crime of violence, even something as minor as assault, is an anger management evaluation. Due Process is lost without these provisions. And yes, I believe without Due Process this will be abused. Social media racing to judgement on every public and private interaction, why would anyone, cede control of their rights to this abyss? Returning to the alternative facts hypothetical: “…going off the deep end”. Are you a clinically certified psychologist? Is there EVIDENCE that the neighbor is a danger to themselves or others? Again, without Due Process this will be abused. I diverge from some of my compatriots, in that I fear the government more than the home invader and freely admit there are weapons designed for combat. In the NRA link, one of the bullet points is AR-15’s are used for hunting. The Viet Nam era AR- 15’s, in general, lack accuracy for hunting, in the last couple of decades AR- 15’s have been worked into tack drivers (very accurate) but I still wouldn’t hunt anything but ground squirrels with one. The people who hunt with an AR-15’s are the same who routinely drive their 300hp Datsun to get groceries, but it their right to do it. The noise surround "assault weapons" is just that noise. One man with a bolt action 30-06, and a little training could be more deadly, than any of these assholes with AR-15's
  3. I don't share your optimism. The Democrats have listed their goals for disarming the country on Biden's website. Reinstating the assault weapons ban is a certainty, as well as, the massive price increase. I do not think Biden will be able to enlist federal agencies to force all registered owners to give up their "assault weapons" without democrat control of the Senate and/or the House, but Biden has been nice enough to tell us, that is what he wants to do. I have posted before -maybe even earlier in this thread- of the manipulative and dishonest tactics behind the gun polices professed by the democrats. If I remember, I didn't even get to all the sneaky back room bullshit that is proposed for ammunition, because it was getting long. Bottom line--Democrats want to forcefully strip Americans from their guns, by legislation that increases the cost of owning or purchasing a firearm excessively expensive, by identifying the owners of firearms and forcing registration or confiscation, again if you are rich and have attorneys, there will be exceptions to these rules. After owners of firearms are identified, more and more, opportunities for forced firearm relinquishment without trial, without conviction, even without arrest, will follow. (remember Biden's goals of forced firearm relinquishment based on accusation--not conviction and that accusation need not be of a crime committed, it can be for a crime someone thinks you MIGHT commit. Accusation of a crime, that might happen combined with evidence of gun ownership,(either gun registration records or testimony of the person bringing the accusation), will be sufficient probable cause to send SWAT or the ATF or both to search your home and secure all firearms. If the accusation is later found to lack merit (months? years?), all registered firearms will be returned. Any non registered firearms confiscated. The non registered firearms will be returned if you bring evidence before a judge and prove firearm ownership. What counts as evidence to prove ownership of non registered firearms. WHO KNOWS. But, I feel confident with the prediction, if you have the cash to hire a bunch of lawyers then somehow evidence will be enough and if you don't have that kind of cash and go to court alone, the evidence will not be enough.
  4. More for your later pile : I have a mostly complete set of FJ40 centers in 4:11. One that hasn't been touched since it was removed, the other I disassembled to make it work in another project. It didn't work and I put the parts in a milk crate in the garage. All the parts should be there, but I haven't gone through it years. I'm in Boise.
  5. At this point, I am not a hater. I admire the pimp and would like to follow in his foot steps. I'll move to Seattle, rent an apartment "engage" with the "community" for $10,000 a month. My alternatives to policing have a long history of success, spanning cultures and continents. If hired, I will guarantee reduction of crime , by engaging the community in close quarters and long range.
  6. After awhile, you adjust to it and I read somewhere that rinsing the beans in a colander(out of the can) helps digestion. i don't know why, but it seemed to work. Then again, it could be when I attempted the rinse method, I had already eaten enough to build a tolerance. As a super thrifty move, I tried hydrating dry beans and it worked and did save money, but it was such a hassle for few dollars saved, I returned to canned beans.
  7. I believe the difficulty in agreement, observed in this discussion of Section 8 housing tenants and proclivity for crime is the result of educational focus (at least in western countries) on critical thinking, and post modernism, as discussed by Jordan Peterson. But, what is wrong with critical thinking?” You might ask. Nothing is wrong with critical thinking to determine the acceptance of one premise, or specific evidence over another; it is useful. However, when employed as a weapon, to generally discount or devalue competing conclusions, it focuses on the forest without consideration of the trees. The post modernist weaponization of critical thinking will ultimately lead to chaos, as eventually all ideals fail under such scrutiny. So, what can be done? Do I suggest abandoning demands for proof, or critically evaluating evidence? Not at all. I recommend critically evaluating all information, but temper the evaluation with what is known and observed (what could be called antidotal evidence.) To apply this to the Section 8 tenants and crime discussion, post modernism critical thinking compels search under every stone and when a Section 8 housing recipient is discovered that that is crime free (as I am certain such exist) the post modern critical thinker, wipes their brow and claims, “sorted, conclusion false”. But, if you apply life experience, and a basic understanding of human behavior, the proposition that in United States (and likely elsewhere, but I lack information) people resort to crime if they determine potential benefit outweighs potential consequence. Therefore, people living in poverty are more likely to commit burglary, larceny, and theft i.e. crime. I believe that statement is self evident and without the need for citation. But, for the post modernists, the preceding statement was paraphrased from the work of Robert J. Sampson Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy and crime statistics found in the United States Census. The information provided will not support the conclusion, “All Section 8 housing tenants are criminals”. However, it will support the premise “Section 8 tenants are more likely to be involved in criminal activity and more likely to associate with those who commit crime.” Simple addition supports the next premise, “The greater concentration of criminals in an area, the greater propensity for crime in that area.” And conclusion follows, “The introduction or increase of Section 8 housing tenants, will result in an increase in criminal activity.” Was this post really necessary? The concept of a poverty and crime connection, so improbable that it could not be accepted without direct evidence? And I didn’t spend much time searching. You could be a good post modernist critical thinker and find an abstract study or manipulated statistic contrary to this position and dismiss the conclusion, but would it be in good faith or post modernism drivel?
  8. I bummed around Europe a few weeks in 2000, and a can of Coke was 3$ in some places, 4$ in others. But, everywhere the cans of Coke were much smaller than the cans of Coke in the USA, I forget the exact size, it was metric, it looked around half size. I saved a couple cans that were printed in other languages, there in some box in the basement that I haven't opened for over a decade 🙂
  9. Holy Shit! After being laid off in early 2000's, I took day labor jobs to keep afloat, while looking for something more permanent. Idaho is not a union state and sometimes working through lunch was required. I started making chili, which was basically beans and rice, with meat, onions, corn,sometimes peppers. I would make four weeks worth at a time and freeze it. The meat was usually wild game deer/elk, years when the hunt was not successful, I would use meat from the discount isle. If I ate chili for breakfast, then working through lunch didn't cause me trouble.If I ate it for breakfast and lunch, then I could work sun up to sun down. I can't work like that anymore, but my premade frozen chili for breakfast, is still a staple and has been breakfast, most days, for nearly twenty years.I use disposable tupperware instead of bags, for freezing and don't dispose (use over and over). I completely understand, "things just stick with you" .
  10. I am not certain, if you are a citizen of the United States, or the republic of California, or somewhere else, but applying the conditions outlined in my previous post, as requirements for receipt of government assistance, in the United States, has been met with resistance. My suggestions for accountability bring accusations that I am racist, fascist, and without compassion.
  11. After the internet bubble burst, I found myself broke and was thankful that food stamp/food bank programs were available. I didn't use the EBT, but did partake in the ground beef and cheese offered, free of charge, for those of low income at the food bank. By lowering my standards for employment, I found work. In my mind, returning to work, as soon as possible, was paramount. However, I do NOT recommend that course of action. Accepting employment, which I was considerably over qualified and the drop in salary that accompanied the position, still haunts me. Instead of accolades for remaining self sufficient in a depressed economy, it was assumed that the step backward in my work history was indication of unsatisfactory performance or disciplinary action. I was able to address this if brought in for interview, but interviews were rare. (I hired a head hunter that explained this problem and I addressed it in the cover letter, but it was still seen, as a negative) Additionally, the fact I accepted significantly less compensation created difficulty negotiating salary: E.g, it was a policy at one company to never offer more than 25% over an applicant's last salary. Finally, social security bases monthly allowance on income achieved before retirement. Although, I have since remedied the issue, if you are nearing the age of social security, then unemployment and welfare, could be preferable to "underemployment" In regards to EBT or food stamps, i say neither. i see the acceptance of government assistance, similar to returning to you parents house; live in Dad's house, follow Dad's rules. Assistance from the community, requires accepting and following community standards. I would provide those requiring assistance, healthy staples or healthy pre-made meals.Gathered from and supporting local farms and ranches, as much as, possible. I do not share the recent trend of surrendering to the will of children and believe if healthy balanced meals are offered and refused,(in the majority of cases) then it is not child abuse or endangerment. Freely chosen malnutrition, by adults or children, would be allowed, until the possibility of irreparable harm; at which point mandatory intravenous feeding would be authorized. Other community standards required to receive assistance from the community-no smoking and this would encompass everything that is legal to smoke in your state. Parents, who repeatedly violate the rules of the community, therefore frequently ineligible for food assistance, will be subject to investigation and loss of child custody. There is more, but that is enough to understand the theory. The more assistance needed from the community, the more individual freedom is superseded to the will of the community.
  12. She wasn't evil, disagreeing with her position on legal issues is not a litmus test for evil. I strongly disagreed with her interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but differing opinions on interpretations of Constitutional law, that are held in good faith and supported by precedent, and rational and/or pragmatic argument, are insufficient to warrant damnation from fellow sinners. The final disposition or location of her eternal soul, if one believes in such things, is another matter entirely. Through a very improbable and unlikely set of circumstances, unrelated to legal matters, I attended a kind of "open house" / dedication, of a property in DC to the Supreme Court. A number of the Supreme Court Justices attended, including Ginsberg. We didn't talk long. She was polite and direct. She was very petite, which surprised me, and frail, in 1999. I would have never believed that she would remain for 20 more years. So, she must have been damn tough, as well.
  13. Not a question, just a reaction, DAMN that's a good deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shipping costs kill it for me, but DAMN
  14. Interpretations of ancient text, visions, things that go bump in the night, I'll be the first to admit that the bullshit probability is very high and have no desire to defend. I am extremely skeptical of any person employing such for decision making, but have lived long enough to concede there is much I do not know. The jump from that admission, to a giant scorekeeper in the sky, is farther than I wish to make. I only mention it as a highly improbable, but not impossible explanation of current events.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.