Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2574662 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-09 13:15 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 129 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-04 12:04 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:07 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 22:41 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:03 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:07 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:10 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:43 -0800
THE LAST JUDGMENT Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:46 -0800
THE LAST JUDGMENT Madame Curie <donnadenke@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 23:50 -0800
Perhaps a 48 inch oilfield pipe wrench rammed up your ass and out your mouth would help? Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:19 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:41 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:34 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 23:01 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:04 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:12 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:38 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 12:57 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:36 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:42 -0600
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:47 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:52 -0600
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:58 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:11 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:17 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:05 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:30 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:33 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 17:09 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 17:42 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:44 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-09 09:47 -0800
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-10 00:20 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands BeamMeUpScotty <Not-Sure@idiocracy.gov> - 2019-01-10 06:53 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-11 00:44 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:43 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:11 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:29 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:37 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 12:08 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:16 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:39 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:35 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 02:26 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:17 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:19 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:50 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:00 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:02 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:16 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:02 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:22 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 13:24 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:11 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:40 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:03 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 10:33 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:54 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:40 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:56 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:09 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:27 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:02 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:50 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:21 -0500
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 00:04 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:24 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:54 -0500
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-09 05:46 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:06 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:35 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:25 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Antitheism <Alt.Atheism@aol.com> - 2019-01-07 21:39 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:22 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 13:18 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 22:15 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:16 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:41 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:23 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:10 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:21 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:32 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:04 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:37 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:55 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 15:41 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:47 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:24 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:46 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 12:21 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:57 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 18:36 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 14:59 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:36 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:15 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 23:30 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-08 03:23 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 05:49 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 13:15 -0800
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 00:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <q16lsu$13t$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2577195 |
"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:q15c2m$mal$1@dont-email.me... > > > "Scout" wrote in message news:q142n8$dha$4@dont-email.me... > > >>"Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>news:ow7ZD.8486$C64.4172@fx21.iad... >>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal >>>>> background checks for all gun purchases. >>>> >>>> For no rational reason. >>> >>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal >>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen. > >>Particularly among criminals since the Courts have ruled that criminals >>can't be prosecuted for such crimes. > Which court was that? Supreme Court of the United States of America. Seems they felt it would amount to self incrimination for a criminal to be required to register their illegal gun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BeamMeUpScotty <Not-Sure@idiocracy.gov> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-10 06:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <2nGZD.3658$T43.3421@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #2577441 |
On 1/10/19 12:20 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:q15c2m$mal$1@dont-email.me... >> >> >> "Scout" wrote in message news:q142n8$dha$4@dont-email.me... >> >> >>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>> news:ow7ZD.8486$C64.4172@fx21.iad... >>>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal >>>>>> background checks for all gun purchases. >>>>> >>>>> For no rational reason. >>>> >>>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal >>>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen. >> >>> Particularly among criminals since the Courts have ruled that >>> criminals can't be prosecuted for such crimes. >> Which court was that? > > Supreme Court of the United States of America. > > Seems they felt it would amount to self incrimination for a criminal to > be required to register their illegal gun. > > That's odd, wile forcing me to register a LEGAL GUN doesn't violate my RIGHTS according to the courts? Does this mean that I should have illegal guns so that they don't need to be registered? And how can any gun I own be illegal if I have a RIGHT that's listed in the 2nd amendment, a RIGHT to Keep and bear arms and it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? I would think that the ONLY legal gun law.... would be to force people with illegal guns to register them because they would be people without a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and it would be constitutional because their RIGHTS have been removed but I don't know how government can do that. I'm NOT sure how they will define an illegal gun when you have a right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. Because making a law to limit a free person and that makes their owning a gun illegal "is" infringing. -- That's Karma
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-11 00:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <q19c9l$5ja$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2577508 |
"BeamMeUpScotty" <Not-Sure@idiocracy.gov> wrote in message news:2nGZD.3658$T43.3421@fx24.iad... > On 1/10/19 12:20 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:q15c2m$mal$1@dont-email.me... >>> >>> >>> "Scout" wrote in message news:q142n8$dha$4@dont-email.me... >>> >>> >>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ow7ZD.8486$C64.4172@fx21.iad... >>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal >>>>>>> background checks for all gun purchases. >>>>>> >>>>>> For no rational reason. >>>>> >>>>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal >>>>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen. >>> >>>> Particularly among criminals since the Courts have ruled that >>>> criminals can't be prosecuted for such crimes. >>> Which court was that? >> >> Supreme Court of the United States of America. >> >> Seems they felt it would amount to self incrimination for a criminal to >> be required to register their illegal gun. >> >> > That's odd, wile forcing me to register a LEGAL GUN doesn't violate my > RIGHTS according to the courts? Of course not, since you're not admitting to an criminal act. > > Does this mean that I should have illegal guns so that they don't need > to be registered? Well, they certainly couldn't charge you will failing to register the guns if they were already illegal when they came into your possession. Of course, they could prosecute you for all the other laws that were violated by that process, just not for failing to register them. > And how can any gun I own be illegal if I have a RIGHT > that's listed in the 2nd amendment, a RIGHT to Keep and bear arms and it > SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? That is sort of the question, isn't it? > I would think that the ONLY legal gun law.... would be to force people > with illegal guns to register them because they would be people without > a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, Objection, They would still have the right. What they would lack would be the protection against having that right infringed upon due to it being a portion of their punishment. > and it would be constitutional because > their RIGHTS have been removed but I don't know how government can do > that. Rights are not something that can be removed, or granted. At most you can either protect the exercise of a person's rights, or you can infringe upon their exercise of their rights. > > I'm NOT sure how they will define an illegal gun when you have a right > to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. Well, that's why jury nullification is needed. > > Because making a law to limit a free person and that makes their owning > a gun illegal "is" infringing. Yep, and we are paying the price because gun owners didn't stand their ground and defend their rights way back when.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 00:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q142n7$dha$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2576711 |
"Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message news:%C6ZD.938$xN2.537@fx17.iad... > On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>> >>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>> >>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>> >>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>> >>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>> agreement here. >> >> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >> checks for all gun purchases. > > Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think your > right to arms is unlimited. Well, you're wrong - the right is not > unlimited. None of which has anything to do to the comments you are responding to. In short, it's a lame attempt to change the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9kekcFo7iU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576702 |
On 1/8/19 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>> >>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>> but that's another matter. >>>> >>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>> >>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>> >>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >> >> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >> agreement here. > > Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that > you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully > automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background > checks for all gun purchases. Wait, you have made it clear it is not a big deal to have such a check. No need to be against it. But you will flip flop. It is so fun to watch. My guess (and it is just a guess) your problems come from you chewing on too many pencils with lead chromate paint. Oh, you do not even understand why they do not make such pencils any more. LOL! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <_l8ZD.4003$Fj3.2017@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576753 |
On 1/8/2019 1:14 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/8/19 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>> >>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>> >>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>> >>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>> >>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>> agreement here. >> >> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >> checks for all gun purchases. > > Wait, you have made it clear it is not a big deal to have such a check. Liar. What I wrote is that if you have a clean background passing a background check is not hard. That doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. Any time the federal government sticks its nose in your private business is a big deal. Any lover of liberty should mistrust government intrusions into his life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9kj1aF1jnhU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576809 |
On 1/8/19 2:11 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 1/8/2019 1:14 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 1/8/19 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>>> >>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>>> >>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >>>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>>> >>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>>> agreement here. >>> >>> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >>> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >>> checks for all gun purchases. >> >> Wait, you have made it clear it is not a big deal to have such a check. > > Liar. You should talk with this guy: Just Wondering: ----- Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You have to be able to pay the purchase price. ----- Unlike you, he does not think such checks are a big deal. LOL! > What I wrote is that if you have a clean background passing a > background check is not hard. That doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. Your flip flops and hair splitting amuses me. It is not hard but it is a big deal? What? No... you are playing games now. > Any time the federal government sticks its nose in your private business > is a big deal. Any lover of liberty should mistrust government > intrusions into his life. But personal threats are fine? LOL! You have no consistent world view other than you want what you want. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fvaZD.2449$375.1765@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576823 |
On 1/8/2019 2:29 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/8/19 2:11 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 1/8/2019 1:14 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 1/8/19 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>>>> >>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional >>>>>> illiteracy. >>>>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>>>> >>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>>>> agreement here. >>>> >>>> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >>>> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >>>> checks for all gun purchases. >>> >>> Wait, you have made it clear it is not a big deal to have such a check. >> >> Liar. > > You should talk with this guy: > > Just Wondering: > ----- > Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: > (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean > background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You > have to be able to pay the purchase price. > ----- > > Unlike you, he does not think such checks are a big deal. LOL! > >> What I wrote is that if you have a clean background passing a >> background check is not hard. That doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. > > Your flip flops and hair splitting amuses me. > > It is not hard but it is a big deal? What? No... you are playing games now. > >> Any time the federal government sticks its nose in your private business >> is a big deal. Any lover of liberty should mistrust government >> intrusions into his life. > > But personal threats are fine? LOL! > > You have no consistent world view other than you want what you want. Check my just-posted comments to another part of this thread, explaining the difference between "not hard" and "not a big deal". Another example" It would be not hard to cause a car accident injuring or killing someone, but it would be a big deal if you did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9ks65F3l5sU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576889 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 1/8/2019 2:29 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 1/8/19 2:11 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 1/8/2019 1:14 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 1/8/19 12:04 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>>>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional >>>>>>> illiteracy. >>>>>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>>>>> >>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>>>>> agreement here. >>>>> >>>>> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >>>>> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >>>>> checks for all gun purchases. >>>> >>>> Wait, you have made it clear it is not a big deal to have such a check. >>> >>> Liar. >> >> You should talk with this guy: >> >> Just Wondering: >> ----- >> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >> ----- >> >> Unlike you, he does not think such checks are a big deal. LOL! >> >>> What I wrote is that if you have a clean background passing a >>> background check is not hard. That doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. >> >> Your flip flops and hair splitting amuses me. >> >> It is not hard but it is a big deal? What? No... you are playing games now. >> >>> Any time the federal government sticks its nose in your private business >>> is a big deal. Any lover of liberty should mistrust government >>> intrusions into his life. >> >> But personal threats are fine? LOL! >> >> You have no consistent world view other than you want what you want. > > Check my just-posted comments to another part of this thread, > explaining the difference between "not hard" and "not a big deal". > Another example" It would be not hard to cause a car accident > injuring or killing someone, but it would be a big deal if you did. > You split hairs to try to back out of your hypocrisy. Sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 12:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2p0a3e5dscoqc490bkqj6ik8t6qg70bs8u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2576416 |
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 16:34:32 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. Thanks for proving your ignorance. $200 tax is the difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 23:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0965e416-deb3-4fc3-a208-a0116e151ada@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2574986 |
Perhaps a 48 inch oilfield pipe wrench rammed up your ass and out your mouth would help? It would give you some teeth to grind with instead of flapping your gums. Whaddaya think? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/soc.history.ancient https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci.archaeology Max Karl Ernst Ludwig
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 03:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q10mg6$t6d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2574982 |
"Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message news:fFYXD.78241$qC3.46650@fx28.iad... > On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's >>>>>>> job. >>> >>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much >>>>>> more. >>> >>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>> >>>>> And THERE IT IS. >>> >>>> IT being truth. Sure. >>> >>> IT being bias, plainly. >> >> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit > > You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is > banning guns. Cut the shit. OMG, Rudy actually saying something both truthful and that I totally agree with.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9i62vFfvv4U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576406 |
On 1/5/19 1:39 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message > news:fFYXD.78241$qC3.46650@fx28.iad... >> On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal >>>>>>>> government's job. >>>> >>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as >>>>>>> we do >>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and >>>>>>> much more. >>>> >>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>>> >>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >>>> >>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >>>> >>>> IT being bias, plainly. >>> >>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >> >> You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is >> banning guns. Cut the shit. > > OMG, Rudy actually saying something both truthful and that I totally > agree with..... He, like you, fears the research that would lead to better risk / benefit analysis in terms of guns. You just want to have your toys no matter how far outside of the evidence it goes. Amazing to watch you guys trip over yourselves in an effort to tell the biggest lies as you work to avoid those realities. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 02:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q0pqdu$9ud$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2574980 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net... > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's >>>>>> job. >> >>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much >>>>> more. >> >>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >> >>>> And THERE IT IS. >> >>> IT being truth. Sure. >> >> IT being bias, plainly. > > Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit > analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. Simple. The CDC is not the proper agency for that, and they have a proven track record of posting biased and misleading 'research' to advance a particular political agenda. Now do you want research, or propaganda?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 03:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7v%XD.465374$GZ9.30352@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #2574980 |
On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >> >>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >> >>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >> >>>> And THERE IT IS. >> >>> IT being truth. Sure. >> >> IT being bias, plainly. > > Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit > analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. > >> >>>> Once again, Snit demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>>> was busted for misusing >>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>> actions which caused its >>>> previous disgrace. >> >>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis >>> in deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. >> >> Laws and regulations, maybe, but not rights. You're not talking about >> zoning laws or freight rates. >> The Founding Fathers believed the right to keep and bear arms so >> important they included it as a >> stand-alone amendment. > > And all rights are limited and balanced. >> >> Once again, Snit demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >> was busted for misusing >> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >> actions which caused its >> previous disgrace. >> >> >> > > Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis > in deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. Every single gun control law has a 100% risk of infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 03:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #2574980 |
On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: > > Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk > / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations > to have in place. So go out and do your precious analysis already. Nobody's stopping you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q11cfe$2ff$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2575072 |
"Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... > On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >> >> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >> to have in place. > > So go out and do your precious analysis already. > Nobody's stopping you. Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money.......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9itmgFknokU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576524 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message > news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>> >>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>> to have in place. >> >> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >> Nobody's stopping you. > > Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... > > You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 01:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kvZYD.5877$wz4.2259@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576538 |
On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: > Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> >> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >> news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>> to have in place. >>> >>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>> Nobody's stopping you. >> >> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... > > You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. How much of your money has been spent on the research you claim to want done?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9jol5Fqga7U11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576574 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>> news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>> to have in place. >>>> >>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>> >>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >> >> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. > > How much of your money has been spent on the research you claim > to want done? > More than you have spent on Trump’s wall. And how much do you pay for police and the military and roads? Your very question is naive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web