Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.checkmate > #170568

Re: Slaughtering concert goers.

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 6/2/2018 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:fng6o8F774pU1@mid.individual.net,
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
>> 
>>> On 6/2/18 11:26 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>> In the most notable case before Heller, United States vs Miller,
>>>>>> Miller's right to keep and bear arms outside his home was never
>>>>>> disputed, only his choice of arm.
>> 
>>>>> Wasn't that about a sword?
>> 
>>>> What are you smoking, dude?
>> 
>>> Sorry, I was thinking of Bliss v. Commonwealth.
>> 
>>> Yes, I think Heller was the first case where the meaning of "bear arms"
>>> was twisted to mean something other than how it is commonly used, and
>>> the militia reference was ignored. Fair enough.
>> 
>> So you admit your cited opinion piece in WAPO was in error.
>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>>> As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong
>>>>>>> opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national
>>>>>>> database, ...
>> 
>>>>>> Is that possible without a national registry?
>> 
>>>>> Yes, though I have no issue with a registry, either.
>> 
>>>> That's a non-starter. Even the peaceful Canucks abandoned their
>>>> attempt due to massive non-compliance.
>> 
>>> A registry is a separate issue. No reason to not have a database. Heck,
>>> even the NRA backs much of that!
>> 
>> A database of what? The statutes are in place to list prohibited buyers already.
>> 
>>>>>>> ...and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and
>>>>>>> you fail to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes
>>>>>>> it is used in (there should be a reasonable time table for the
>>>>>>> report).
>> 
>>>>>>> I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not
>>>>>>> happen with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns.
>>>>>>> That is insane.
>> 
>>>>>> If you're referring to the Dickey amendment, you're wrong.
>> 
>>>>> It effectively blocked such research.
>> 
>>>> Only if they couldn't refrain from advocating more gun control.
>> 
>>>> CDC has paid for such research since the Dickey amendment.
>> 
>>> Little research has been done...
>> 
>> Not because of Dickey.
>> 
>>> ... the NRA is terrified evidence will show that their claims of how to
>>> handle the big issue the
>>> US has is not based on facts.
>> 
>>> I support evidence-based policy... we NEED to do more research to get
>>> better evidence. Do you know how little research is done here compared
>>> to, say, vehicular deaths and injuries?
>> 
>>> This is really not tat complex: pools, food, cars, roads, ladders, air,
>>> water, and much more have
>>> research done on them and the government works (sometimes poorly) to
>>> fulfill its duty to promote
>>> the general welfare (research and policies which, at least in theory,
>>> are based on the evidence
>>> found... NOT saying we do that well).
>> 
>> The government's job is to protect the borders and deliver the mail.
>> That's all the Constitution
>> specifies.
>> 
>>> With guns, though, this is done even LESS well. This is largely because
>>> the NRA, an organization
>>> that benefits from mass shootings and other gun violence and terrorism,
>>> has so much control in our
>>> legislative process. ...
>> 
>> Ok, now you've trotted off into Lalaland.
> 
> For sure. One has to wonder just HOW the NRA benefits from Mass 
> shootings and terrorism? Shooters are all NRA members? That's funny NO 
> mass shooter has EVER been shown to have an NRA card. Usually they are 
> nutjob democrats. On the other hand what DOES benefit the NRA and gun 
> industry are liberals like those here calling for repeal of all 
> constitutional protections of rights (you can't repeal rights) that 
> scare the public into buying guns and joining the NRA. Thanks for the 
> good work, Snit!
> 
> 
> 
>>> My view is we should not allow the NRA to fund our representatives (nor
>>> allow Planned Parenthood or any other special interest... this is not a
>>> left vs. right issue to me).
>> 
>> Nor NEA or SEIU or AFL-CIO.
> 
> And this is not a left-right issue. The issue is are people only allowed 
> to exercise political activity alone as solitary figures. How does it 
> make sense that if a group of people of similar political beliefs want 
> to form a group and hold meetings and discussions and even give their 
> opinion on the various issues they are interested in including various 
> candidates for office, that they can INDIVIDUALLY hold these opinions 
> and do these activities, but as a group it is somehow forbidden?
> 
> The issue is not WHAT their political beliefs are but rather only the 
> issue if they choose to peaceably assemble as a group to engage in 
> political activities is that somehow unconstitutional?
> 
> Perhaps SNIT (and rest of us) should be banned from coming together in a 
> group here in the internet to engage in political activity? Or is it the 
> handing out of membership cards that makes all the difference?
> 

I am saying the people should be in charge, not just the wealthy. 

Back to alt.checkmate | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 09:09 -0400
  Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:39 -0700
    Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 13:29 -0400
      Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 11:09 -0700
        Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 17:20 -0400
          Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 14:35 -0700
        Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:08 -0700
          Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0700
            Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 11:26 -0700
              Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:42 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:32 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:37 -0400
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 17:57 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 19:04 -0600
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:30 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 19:00 -0600
              Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:09 -0400

csiph-web