Surgery [26 May 2018] Phil States His Demands.

Let me give you one piece of sagely advice, free of charge.

This amount of money will literally kill you.

Remember that drunk in your bedroom? The one who didn't even say a thing while you're supposedly getting your vagina? What do you think he'll do if you suddenly has more money than he'd ever earn in 10 lifetimes? Do you think your candy-color baseball bats and airsoft guns are a match against his brute strength? No, don't kid yourself.

So it is not that we Kiwi Farms are stringy or callous against the plight of a fat Italian man -- after all, we have given plenty to Christine -- it is that we care too much about you.
 
Positron dijo:
Let me give you one piece of sagely advice, free of charge.

This amount of money will literally kill you.

Remember that drunk in your bedroom? The one who didn't even say a thing while you're supposedly getting your vagina? What do you think he'll do if you suddenly has more money than he'd ever earn in 10 lifetimes? Do you think your candy-color baseball bats and airsoft guns are a match against his brute strength? No, don't kid yourself.
Presiona para expandir...
Christ, for that amount of money, I'd consider killing him myself. It's not like he could put up much of a fight.
 
Makes me wonder, what would Phil DO with a handgun besides pose with it and keep it as a trophy? (Nevermind the fact that guns are theft targets, and I think Phil's current place was doxed). It's not open carry because of city ordinances, and Phil is too stupid to conceal it. He can't randomly shoot people, and he probably wouldn't even get that far and be like that weirdo in Oklahoma, even in Oregon (he might not get shot, but he might get a severe enough beating to mold his head to the correct shape). Despite his constant talk about suicide, no way would he even kill himself (deliberately, at least).
 
Just cuz you got your dick snipped off doesn't mean you have a pussy, it means you just have a mutilated penis.
 
Club Sandwich dijo:
the 5150, which refers to the portion of the Welfare and Institutions Code that was made by the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act, describes in several sections how someone may be investigated and detained for psychiatric evaluation. it isn't an arrest, and the person is not a criminal. nothing in the act makes the person a prohibited person under federal law (as those are already defined in USC Title 18 922g). however in CA (and some other states), a determination of custody under 5150.3 can be a temporary prohibition against possessing firearms for up to five years in that state.

the people saying he'll be executed for touching a gun because he OD'd on Tylenol are pretty far off the mark.



mental defective has a specific legal definition, one that Phil does not meet.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/agorder0001pdf/download

Ver archivo adjunto 459269

that proposed ruling is in effect, and is how the ATF interprets things - it isn't a legislative change however as the actual language in USC 18 922 (g) is unchanged. Phil hasn't been indicted or found by a court to be mentally defective.

the thing that might actually nab Phil is if he has any restraining orders (a civil matter) out for him, as they almost always have language that prohibits firearm possession on threat of criminal charges, or if he's ever been convicted of domestic violence, which i think he hit his mother (?).


OR, WA, AZ, NV, and CA have roughly the same language as the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (in California). this sort of thing happened in the 70's and was widespread across the US with minor variations under different names and enacted in different time frames. by 1981 all states had some sort of involuntary psychiatric evaluation custodial hold in some form or another.


correct somewhat. in OR, the Public Records Unit (a department of the state's DoJ, FB) conducts a background check against 3 primary databases (criminal convictions, arrest records, and general background which has things like prior addresses). a CHL (and some other things) has the additional requirement of classwork/certification, and an in-person interview.


in the US, if you are never convicted in court, your arrest records only show a pattern of poorly thought out behavior - it doesn't otherwise impact your life in any meaningful way outside of very specific employment or duties/responsibilities.

if Phil is as acerbic and awkward in other stores as he was in mine, he'd likely be denied a sale by the dealer on account of not wanting to contribute to the gun control lobby's narrative. likewise it's unlikely he has the connections to acquire one from a gangmember, drug dealer, or otherwise off the books. he also seems to lack any mechanical aptitude to manufacture even a slam fire shotgun out of pipes.

admittedly there are some unscrupulous sellers out there so who knows. maybe he'll "luck" out and just be ripped off or sold a cop-killer (felony possession is a helluva drug).


i agree wholeheartedly, i think Phil has some magical thinking that a gun is a talisman: merely possessing it may give him some power over others. sadly more competent people than Phil think the same way.
Presiona para expandir...
Since you seem to be experienced with this perhaps you can notify some of the local gun dealers about Phil, just to be safe?
 
Xarpho dijo:
Makes me wonder, what would Phil DO with a handgun besides pose with it and keep it as a trophy? (Nevermind the fact that guns are theft targets, and I think Phil's current place was doxed). It's not open carry because of city ordinances, and Phil is too stupid to conceal it. He can't randomly shoot people, and he probably wouldn't even get that far and be like that weirdo in Oklahoma, even in Oregon (he might not get shot, but he might get a severe enough beating to mold his head to the correct shape). Despite his constant talk about suicide, no way would he even kill himself (deliberately, at least).
Presiona para expandir...
I think the realistic result of spud getting a gun would be him posing with it for pictures and that's it. I don't know if he'd ever even buy ammo or insert a loaded mag. If he ever actually pulled the trigger it would be a negligent discharge in his apartment, or the stairwell of the seller's building if he went the illegal route, and he'd get arrested. No way he'd use any sort of common sense with a firearm let alone abide by any of the safety rules or accepted handling practices. Actually, I could see him inserting a mag and chambering a round just win one against kiwi farmers since I made this post.
 
6) Refer to my Social Security Disability benefits as a battleship(and not a tugboat)
Presiona para expandir...
I'm fucking dying, what kind of demand is this?! This is tacit awareness of meme magic, and demanding we alter the spell to make her princess and not a goose.
 
Leaked photo of phil with a gun:

phirearm phil.jpg
 
DragoonSierra dijo:
Since you seem to be experienced with this perhaps you can notify some of the local gun dealers about Phil, just to be safe?
Presiona para expandir...
"hey i'm a manufacturer down in California, and the internet told me to warn you that [description of Phil] might try and buy a gun, so don't sell it to him."

yeah, no. that wouldn't fly for several reasons, among the largest is pure liability - trying to blackball someone out of the industry (as a customer, even) can be legally actionable in specific circumstances. moreover, "the internet told me so" is a poor reason to hold it up under scrutiny if there's a suit for slander or something where someone (me) is purposefully contacting people around him (Phil) to deny him access to goods/services.

if Phil wants a gun, in the US, if he isn't a prohibited person and he meets whatever criteria there is in his state of residence, he can buy a gun as is his right as a US citizen. such is the nature of an inalienable right - they are very hard to take away, generally the person who has the right must forfeit it in some way.

i'm not keen on Phil being armed, but until he's actually convicted or is somehow prohibited, we can only trust that reputable dealers can sense the failure and opt out of the sale. there's a reason why some 80%+ of firearms in criminal hands are stolen or straw purchased - dealers don't generally sell to someone that is going to be a liability.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

note that these numbers have gone down for retail sales past 2001 due to the ATF pressuring store owners to be more selective, and gun dealers not wanting to be in prison. it's hovering around 5% or so from the last i know, and that 5% were sold legally to people that had no prior record so there was no reason to deny a sale or were sold many years ago well before they would have been denied.
 
Última edición:
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo