Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #170020 > unrolled thread
| Started by | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 08:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 274 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:08 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:35 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:35 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 17:16 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:10 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 01:39 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:30 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 21:34 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:47 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:01 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:28 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:27 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:38 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:53 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 22:39 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 21:33 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 04:54 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 05:06 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:54 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:11 -0700
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:51 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 11:59 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:25 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:28 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:08 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 23:24 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:12 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:15 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:48 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:32 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 21:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:49 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:49 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:45 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 22:47 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 05:40 +0000
Permission to breath ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:13 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:53 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 22:03 -0600
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 23:33 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:42 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:08 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 21:36 -0600
Clarity. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-03 08:52 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:46 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:53 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 22:59 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 23:19 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 09:10 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:31 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:12 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:26 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:10 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:54 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 22:19 -0500
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 20:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 00:24 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 05:43 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-07 05:45 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 07:17 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 00:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 16:07 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:30 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:34 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:50 -0700
"Natural Rights" aren't always wonderful. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 19:02 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:49 -0700
Depressed Losers, slaughtering consert goers, is "natural" ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 02:18 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:25 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:16 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-02 01:20 -0400
Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 19:05 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 22:34 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-03 14:02 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 01:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-03 15:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-03 18:51 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 01:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-03 20:11 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 00:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:37 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:30 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 17:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 15:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-04 23:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:51 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 09:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:51 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:02 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:27 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 08:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:32 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:17 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:01 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 05:15 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:07 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 05:45 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <cm6ihdposghhn643qrqi01pm7mu90futfb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #172035 |
On 7 Jun 2018 05:43:38 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> >> "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message >> news:eh8hhd1amd9as0fofttbeoisq4t8utf9qn@4ax.com... >>> x-no-idiots: yes >>> >>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:37:11 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under >>>>> discussion is that of the people. >>>>> >>>>> And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem with >>>>> getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have trouble even >>>>> understanding the limited portion I present to you. >>>> >>>> Ah, insults because you cannot support your view. How original! >>> >>> A human right has three properties; it is: >>> >>> 1) Intrinsic; it is a property of every human being on the planet. >>> They may not live here and their government might not respect it; >>> however, the second the person's feet are on US soil, the person has >>> that right. Is this how we practice gun "rights"? >> >> Sorry, they have the right whether their feet are on US soil or not. The >> real issue is whether they can freely exercise their rights or not. That >> depends on how oppressive and tyrannical the government is. >> >> After all, even prisoners that are locked up in jails keep and bear arms >> despite all the attempts by authority to prevent it. >> >> Sounds pretty damn intrinsic to me. >> >> >> >>> >>> 2) Indelible; a human right simply cannot be removed for any reason. >>> Is this how we practice gun rights? >> >> Sure is. Because we can neither grant rights nor remove rights. The most we >> can do is allow the free exercise of rights, or to infringe upon those >> rights to some extent from minor to full denial. But just because it's >> illegal doesn't mean people don't continue to exercise their rights. They >> just don't do it as publically and openly. >> >> >>> >>> 3) Universal; a right is generally recognized across political >>> boundaries. >> >> <snip> >> >> Thus is we have an oppressive tyranny anywhere on the planet then according >> to you no one anywhere has any rights because the oppressive tyranny doesn't >> recognize the rights that everyone else on the planet does. >> >> Sorry, but YOU may feel your rights depend on a dictator recognizing your >> rights, but I know what my rights are and they don't depend on some tyrant >> to acknowledge them. >> >> Otherwise, how could a rebellion EVER occur. Because according to you no one >> would have the right to rebel because the government wouldn't recognize it. >> Oddly enough, the people don't give a shit if the oppressive government >> recognizes their rights or not. The people recognize their own rights and >> that's enough. >> >> >> > >Where do rights come from? The easter bunny, now take this shit somewhere else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnuordFt7iqU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172035 |
On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 05:43:38 +0000, Snit wrote: > Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> >> "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message >> news:eh8hhd1amd9as0fofttbeoisq4t8utf9qn@4ax.com... >>> x-no-idiots: yes >>> >>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:37:11 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under >>>>> discussion is that of the people. >>>>> >>>>> And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem >>>>> with getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have >>>>> trouble even understanding the limited portion I present to you. >>>> >>>> Ah, insults because you cannot support your view. How original! >>> >>> A human right has three properties; it is: >>> >>> 1) Intrinsic; it is a property of every human being on the planet. >>> They may not live here and their government might not respect it; >>> however, the second the person's feet are on US soil, the person has >>> that right. Is this how we practice gun "rights"? >> >> Sorry, they have the right whether their feet are on US soil or not. >> The real issue is whether they can freely exercise their rights or not. >> That depends on how oppressive and tyrannical the government is. >> >> After all, even prisoners that are locked up in jails keep and bear >> arms despite all the attempts by authority to prevent it. >> >> Sounds pretty damn intrinsic to me. >> >> >> >> >>> 2) Indelible; a human right simply cannot be removed for any reason. >>> Is this how we practice gun rights? >> >> Sure is. Because we can neither grant rights nor remove rights. The >> most we can do is allow the free exercise of rights, or to infringe >> upon those rights to some extent from minor to full denial. But just >> because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't continue to exercise >> their rights. They just don't do it as publically and openly. >> >> >> >>> 3) Universal; a right is generally recognized across political >>> boundaries. >> >> <snip> >> >> Thus is we have an oppressive tyranny anywhere on the planet then >> according to you no one anywhere has any rights because the oppressive >> tyranny doesn't recognize the rights that everyone else on the planet >> does. >> >> Sorry, but YOU may feel your rights depend on a dictator recognizing >> your rights, but I know what my rights are and they don't depend on >> some tyrant to acknowledge them. >> >> Otherwise, how could a rebellion EVER occur. Because according to you >> no one would have the right to rebel because the government wouldn't >> recognize it. Oddly enough, the people don't give a shit if the >> oppressive government recognizes their rights or not. The people >> recognize their own rights and that's enough. >> >> >> >> > Where do rights come from? Duuuuh, let's ignore common knowledge. In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 00:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnup4nFp19uU16@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172319 |
On 6/8/18 12:17 AM, vallor wrote: ... >> Where do rights come from? > > Duuuuh, let's ignore common knowledge. > > In Congress, July 4, 1776. > The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When > in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to > dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and > to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station > to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent > respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the > causes which impel them to the separation. > > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, > that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to > secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their > just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of > Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the > People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying > its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, > as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. A "creator"... a place holder for SOME deity or nature or mystic forces or whatever... and we just assume these rights exist outside of what we know. But different cultures at different times see these rights in different ways. -- 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 | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fo2c98FkubpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172320 |
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:21:59 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/8/18 12:17 AM, vallor wrote: > ... >>> Where do rights come from? >> >> Duuuuh, let's ignore common knowledge. >> >> In Congress, July 4, 1776. >> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, >> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people >> to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, >> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal >> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a >> decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should >> declare the causes which impel them to the separation. >> >> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable >> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of >> Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted >> among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, >> --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these >> ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to >> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and >> organizing its powers in such form, >> as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. > > A "creator"... a place holder for SOME deity or nature or mystic forces > or whatever... and we just assume these rights exist outside of what we > know. > > But different cultures at different times see these rights in different > ways. That's got to be one of the vaguest fizzles I've ever read. I accept your concession of defeat, you may now bask in the glory that is the Declaration of Independence. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 09:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fo2dkbFcgkoU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172605 |
On 6/9/18 9:07 AM, vallor wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:21:59 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/8/18 12:17 AM, vallor wrote: >> ... >>>> Where do rights come from? >>> >>> Duuuuh, let's ignore common knowledge. >>> >>> In Congress, July 4, 1776. >>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, >>> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people >>> to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, >>> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal >>> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a >>> decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should >>> declare the causes which impel them to the separation. >>> >>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable >>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of >>> Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted >>> among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, >>> --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these >>> ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to >>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and >>> organizing its powers in such form, >>> as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. >> >> A "creator"... a place holder for SOME deity or nature or mystic forces >> or whatever... and we just assume these rights exist outside of what we >> know. >> >> But different cultures at different times see these rights in different >> ways. > > That's got to be one of the vaguest fizzles I've ever read. Then you get the point... what is a right is not clear. Sure, there are certain things which we take for granted -- they are so ingrained in us. And that is good. But there is no "universal" view on this, and no deity which has set up rights, nor a universe which has put any such rights into place. They are man made. > I accept your concession of defeat, you may now bask in the glory that is > the Declaration of Independence. They are self-evidence in that we have almost universal agreement on many. There is no creator to have given us anything, unless you mean nature itself, and nature cares not one whit about rights. -- 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 | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 01:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fo3deaFochoU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172616 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 09:30:03 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/9/18 9:07 AM, vallor wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:21:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/8/18 12:17 AM, vallor wrote: >>> ... >>>>> Where do rights come from? >>>> >>>> Duuuuh, let's ignore common knowledge. >>>> >>>> In Congress, July 4, 1776. >>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, >>>> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one >>>> people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with >>>> another, >>>> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal >>>> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, >>>> a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should >>>> declare the causes which impel them to the separation. >>>> >>>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain >>>> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the >>>> pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are >>>> instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of >>>> the governed, >>>> --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these >>>> ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to >>>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles >>>> and organizing its powers in such form, >>>> as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and >>>> Happiness. >>> >>> A "creator"... a place holder for SOME deity or nature or mystic >>> forces or whatever... and we just assume these rights exist outside of >>> what we know. >>> >>> But different cultures at different times see these rights in >>> different ways. >> >> That's got to be one of the vaguest fizzles I've ever read. > > Then you get the point... what is a right is not clear. Sure, there are > certain things which we take for granted -- they are so ingrained in us. > And that is good. But there is no "universal" view on this, and no deity > which has set up rights, nor a universe which has put any such rights > into place. They are man made. > >> I accept your concession of defeat, you may now bask in the glory that >> is the Declaration of Independence. > > They are self-evidence in that we have almost universal agreement on > many. There is no creator to have given us anything, unless you mean > nature itself, and nature cares not one whit about rights. You are out of your gourd. The Framers were Deists, and the least controversial way for them to explain the source of rights was "the Creator". Whether or not that was a personal god is up for debate, but that's not the point. From whence _you_, a conscious being, came, so came rights. If you want to think of that as the laws of nature, that's fine. If you want to believe that consciousness isn't miraculous, that's fine too. The point is that humans are born with rights, and it is one of the most important -- if not the most important -- role of government is to secure and protect those rights. But I think if we were to discuss this definition of rights, we would come to agreement. But ultimately, that isn't our disagreement. Our disagreement is whether or not human beings are born with the right to personally defend themselves with deadly force. No amount of quibbling can get around this: you seem to have decided that a human being's right to defend himself or herself with deadly force is either a) not a right, or b) not a right worth protecting. And let's not have any more of this appeal to what felons may and may not do to try to defend your position. We take away the ability for felons to exercise certain rights because it is prudent. Sometimes they aren't allowed to vote, and in all cases I've ever heard of, they can't have actual weapons. That isn't an argument that they weren't born with those rights, but that the consequences of their convictions is that they can't exercise those rights. I think the most rational and objective view of the situation is that human beings are born with the right to life, and that includes the right to peronsally defend themselves -- yes, even with deadly force, if it comes to that. BTW, Snit, this post isn't really for your benefit -- it is for the benefit of onlookers. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 18:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <bbeko6.scj.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #172874 |
On 2018-06-09 6:32 PM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 09:30:03 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/9/18 9:07 AM, vallor wrote: >>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:21:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/8/18 12:17 AM, vallor wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> Where do rights come from? >>>>> >>>>> Duuuuh, let's ignore common knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> In Congress, July 4, 1776. >>>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, >>>>> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one >>>>> people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with >>>>> another, >>>>> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal >>>>> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, >>>>> a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should >>>>> declare the causes which impel them to the separation. >>>>> >>>>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >>>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain >>>>> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the >>>>> pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are >>>>> instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of >>>>> the governed, >>>>> --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these >>>>> ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to >>>>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles >>>>> and organizing its powers in such form, >>>>> as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and >>>>> Happiness. >>>> >>>> A "creator"... a place holder for SOME deity or nature or mystic >>>> forces or whatever... and we just assume these rights exist outside of >>>> what we know. >>>> >>>> But different cultures at different times see these rights in >>>> different ways. >>> >>> That's got to be one of the vaguest fizzles I've ever read. >> >> Then you get the point... what is a right is not clear. Sure, there are >> certain things which we take for granted -- they are so ingrained in us. >> And that is good. But there is no "universal" view on this, and no deity >> which has set up rights, nor a universe which has put any such rights >> into place. They are man made. >> >>> I accept your concession of defeat, you may now bask in the glory that >>> is the Declaration of Independence. >> >> They are self-evidence in that we have almost universal agreement on >> many. There is no creator to have given us anything, unless you mean >> nature itself, and nature cares not one whit about rights. > > You are out of your gourd. > > The Framers were Deists, and the least controversial way for them to > explain the source of rights was "the Creator". Whether or not that was > a personal god is up for debate, but that's not the point. > > From whence _you_, a conscious being, came, so came rights. If you want > to think of that as the laws of nature, that's fine. If you want to > believe that consciousness isn't miraculous, that's fine too. The point > is that humans are born with rights, and it is one of the most important > -- if not the most important -- role of government is to secure and > protect those rights. > > But I think if we were to discuss this definition of rights, we would > come to agreement. But ultimately, that isn't our disagreement. > > Our disagreement is whether or not human beings are born with the right > to personally defend themselves with deadly force. No amount of > quibbling can get around this: you seem to have decided that a human > being's right to defend himself or herself with deadly force is either a) > not a right, or b) not a right worth protecting. > > And let's not have any more of this appeal to what felons may and may not > do to try to defend your position. We take away the ability for felons > to exercise certain rights because it is prudent. Sometimes they aren't > allowed to vote, and in all cases I've ever heard of, they can't have > actual weapons. That isn't an argument that they weren't born with those > rights, but that the consequences of their convictions is that they can't > exercise those rights. > > I think the most rational and objective view of the situation is that > human beings are born with the right to life, and that includes the right > to peronsally defend themselves -- yes, even with deadly force, if it > comes to that. > > BTW, Snit, this post isn't really for your benefit -- it is for the > benefit of onlookers. > i promise i on looked
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 20:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fo3lf9Fs49hU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172875 |
On 6/9/18 6:34 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-09 6:32 PM, vallor wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 09:30:03 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/9/18 9:07 AM, vallor wrote: >>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:21:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/8/18 12:17 AM, vallor wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>>> Where do rights come from? >>>>>> >>>>>> Duuuuh, let's ignore common knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> In Congress, July 4, 1776. >>>>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, >>>>>> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one >>>>>> people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with >>>>>> another, >>>>>> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal >>>>>> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, >>>>>> a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should >>>>>> declare the causes which impel them to the separation. >>>>>> >>>>>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >>>>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain >>>>>> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the >>>>>> pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are >>>>>> instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of >>>>>> the governed, >>>>>> --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these >>>>>> ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to >>>>>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles >>>>>> and organizing its powers in such form, >>>>>> as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and >>>>>> Happiness. >>>>> >>>>> A "creator"... a place holder for SOME deity or nature or mystic >>>>> forces or whatever... and we just assume these rights exist outside of >>>>> what we know. >>>>> >>>>> But different cultures at different times see these rights in >>>>> different ways. >>>> >>>> That's got to be one of the vaguest fizzles I've ever read. >>> >>> Then you get the point... what is a right is not clear. Sure, there are >>> certain things which we take for granted -- they are so ingrained in us. >>> And that is good. But there is no "universal" view on this, and no deity >>> which has set up rights, nor a universe which has put any such rights >>> into place. They are man made. >>> >>>> I accept your concession of defeat, you may now bask in the glory that >>>> is the Declaration of Independence. >>> >>> They are self-evidence in that we have almost universal agreement on >>> many. There is no creator to have given us anything, unless you mean >>> nature itself, and nature cares not one whit about rights. >> >> You are out of your gourd. >> >> The Framers were Deists, and the least controversial way for them to >> explain the source of rights was "the Creator". Whether or not that was >> a personal god is up for debate, but that's not the point. >> >> From whence _you_, a conscious being, came, so came rights. If you >> want >> to think of that as the laws of nature, that's fine. If you want to >> believe that consciousness isn't miraculous, that's fine too. The point >> is that humans are born with rights, and it is one of the most important >> -- if not the most important -- role of government is to secure and >> protect those rights. >> >> But I think if we were to discuss this definition of rights, we would >> come to agreement. But ultimately, that isn't our disagreement. >> >> Our disagreement is whether or not human beings are born with the right >> to personally defend themselves with deadly force. No amount of >> quibbling can get around this: you seem to have decided that a human >> being's right to defend himself or herself with deadly force is either a) >> not a right, or b) not a right worth protecting. >> >> And let's not have any more of this appeal to what felons may and may not >> do to try to defend your position. We take away the ability for felons >> to exercise certain rights because it is prudent. Sometimes they aren't >> allowed to vote, and in all cases I've ever heard of, they can't have >> actual weapons. That isn't an argument that they weren't born with those >> rights, but that the consequences of their convictions is that they can't >> exercise those rights. >> >> I think the most rational and objective view of the situation is that >> human beings are born with the right to life, and that includes the right >> to peronsally defend themselves -- yes, even with deadly force, if it >> comes to that. >> >> BTW, Snit, this post isn't really for your benefit -- it is for the >> benefit of onlookers. >> > i promise i on looked Whew! -- 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 | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 19:02 -0700 |
| Subject | "Natural Rights" aren't always wonderful. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--7.02pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #172874 |
"Natural Rights" aren't always wonderful, Scott. Depressed losers "toss the table" disrupting the game. Alek Minassian mowed down pedestrians. He said: The Incel Rebellion has begun ! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys ! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger ! Before then, no one suspected him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 20:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fo3levFs49hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172874 |
On 6/9/18 6:32 PM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 09:30:03 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/9/18 9:07 AM, vallor wrote: >>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:21:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/8/18 12:17 AM, vallor wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> Where do rights come from? >>>>> >>>>> Duuuuh, let's ignore common knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> In Congress, July 4, 1776. >>>>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, >>>>> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one >>>>> people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with >>>>> another, >>>>> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal >>>>> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, >>>>> a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should >>>>> declare the causes which impel them to the separation. >>>>> >>>>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >>>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain >>>>> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the >>>>> pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are >>>>> instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of >>>>> the governed, >>>>> --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these >>>>> ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to >>>>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles >>>>> and organizing its powers in such form, >>>>> as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and >>>>> Happiness. >>>> >>>> A "creator"... a place holder for SOME deity or nature or mystic >>>> forces or whatever... and we just assume these rights exist outside of >>>> what we know. >>>> >>>> But different cultures at different times see these rights in >>>> different ways. >>> >>> That's got to be one of the vaguest fizzles I've ever read. >> >> Then you get the point... what is a right is not clear. Sure, there are >> certain things which we take for granted -- they are so ingrained in us. >> And that is good. But there is no "universal" view on this, and no deity >> which has set up rights, nor a universe which has put any such rights >> into place. They are man made. >> >>> I accept your concession of defeat, you may now bask in the glory that >>> is the Declaration of Independence. >> >> They are self-evidence in that we have almost universal agreement on >> many. There is no creator to have given us anything, unless you mean >> nature itself, and nature cares not one whit about rights. > > You are out of your gourd. Ah, insults. That really pushes your view well! > The Framers were Deists, and the least controversial way for them to > explain the source of rights was "the Creator". Whether or not that was > a personal god is up for debate, but that's not the point. Well, as deists that implies a deity. But their belief in one, or not, is not really relevant here. I am not asking where they thought rights came from -- I am noting my views. > From whence _you_, a conscious being, came, so came rights. If you want > to think of that as the laws of nature, that's fine. If you want to > believe that consciousness isn't miraculous, that's fine too. The point > is that humans are born with rights, and it is one of the most important > -- if not the most important -- role of government is to secure and > protect those rights. On some level I agree... I think we all have rights. Sure. But we have because we agree we have them (and only to the extent that we, as a society, have that basic agreement). They are not there by "nature" -- except to the extent that we have this inane view through evolution. > But I think if we were to discuss this definition of rights, we would > come to agreement. But ultimately, that isn't our disagreement. Whose is it? :) > Our disagreement is whether or not human beings are born with the right > to personally defend themselves with deadly force. No amount of > quibbling can get around this: you seem to have decided that a human > being's right to defend himself or herself with deadly force is either a) > not a right, or b) not a right worth protecting. Can you quote where I have said that? Maybe you are thinking of my noting of the meaning of the second amendment? <https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html> ----- James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. ----- Understanding that does not speak to MY view of the right to defend oneself. With that said, I absolutely believe our right to arms, like ALL our rights, is limited (and even the SCOTUS agrees with that). > And let's not have any more of this appeal to what felons may and may not > do to try to defend your position. You are jumping to law, now, and not to my view of the right to defense. Why? But since you have: there was a time when felons were not denied legal access to guns. Now they are. This is clearly an infringement. For those who push the idea that ALL people should have access to guns it is contrary to that view. > We take away the ability for felons > to exercise certain rights because it is prudent. Same with other laws about arms. Sure. People cannot have nukes and ricin and dirty bombs, for example, and there are some very strong limits on many fully automatic weapons and on working tanks and on dynamite and more. > Sometimes they aren't > allowed to vote, and in all cases I've ever heard of, they can't have > actual weapons. They can have MANY weapons. They cannot (legally) have guns. > That isn't an argument that they weren't born with those > rights, but that the consequences of their convictions is that they can't > exercise those rights. If they are "natural" then how can other people take those rights away? Seems you are backing my view of rights being an agreement of society. > I think the most rational and objective view of the situation is that > human beings are born with the right to life, and that includes the right > to peronsally defend themselves -- yes, even with deadly force, if it > comes to that. Those are different things. Also interesting how you tie rights to birth. I know many who are against abortions who would disagree with you. > BTW, Snit, this post isn't really for your benefit -- it is for the > benefit of onlookers. You are an odd duck. -- 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 | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 12:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Depressed Losers, slaughtering consert goers, is "natural" ? |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--0.21pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #172605 |
Depressed Losers, slaughtering consert goers, is "natural" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 02:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pf5aq9$u6d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170379 |
"Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >> > Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >> >> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. > > The Supreme Court got it wrong. > > Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . Excuse me, but I can't seem to find that condition in the 2nd. Nor would the structure of the sentence allow the opening nominative absolute to establish such a connection since a nominative absolute has no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence. > Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen > slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. And yet, he was likely included in most of legal definitions for the composition of the militia as defined in both federal and state statutes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 06:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnnhabFbpqgU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171355 |
On 6/4/18 11:18 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message > news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>> > Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>> >>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >> >> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >> >> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . > > Excuse me, but I can't seem to find that condition in the 2nd. Can you quote the full second amendment? Keep in mind that the modern individual right interpretation did not show up in any law until 2008. > Nor would > the structure of the sentence allow the opening nominative absolute to > establish such a connection since a nominative absolute has no > grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence. What do you think the value of that clause is? And why do you think they used the phrase "bear arms" when it includes that same context? >> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. > > And yet, he was likely included in most of legal definitions for the > composition of the militia as defined in both federal and state statutes. -- 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 | 2018-06-05 18:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pf73v4$nuq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171428 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnnhabFbpqgU3@mid.individual.net... > On 6/4/18 11:18 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message >> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>>> > Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>> >>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>> >>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>> >>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >> >> Excuse me, but I can't seem to find that condition in the 2nd. > > Can you quote the full second amendment? Yes, and doesn't alter in the least what I said above. >Keep in mind that the modern individual right interpretation did not show >up in any law until 2008. It has existed long before that, even if we only look at cases before SCOTUS. Indeed we can track the individual right interpretation right back to quotations by the founding fathers during the time of ratification. If they didn't know what it meant, then clearly we have a problem, and it would apply to the entire Constitution because according to you they had no idea of what they were saying. >> Nor would the structure of the sentence allow the opening nominative >> absolute to establish such a connection since a nominative absolute has >> no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence. > > What do you think the value of that clause is? A reason, and specifically a very important reason, for why this right MUST be protected. For to have the well regulated militia necessary to secure the free state, there MUST exist a generally armed populous upon which to draw from when such a militia is needed. Without that armed populous the formation of that well regulated militia would be impossible. Further we know from the discussions that they did NOT wish to place that power within the hands of the government for the well founded fear that governments, in time, use those forces not to preserve the free state, but rather to impose tyranny and oppression. Remember they just finished fighting regular government troops trying to impose and maintain such tyranny and oppression upon them. What it does NOT do, is impose any conditions, limits, restrictions, etc upon the main clause in which the right of the people is protected from infringement. > And why do you think they used the phrase "bear arms" when it includes > that same context? Sorry, but simply bearing arms does not require or even imply one is doing so for a military purpose. I may bear arms for my own self defense, and I've already quoted a Founding Father saying such in a quotation from the time of ratification. >>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >> >> And yet, he was likely included in most of legal definitions for the >> composition of the militia as defined in both federal and state statutes. > <crickets>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnolgoFbpqgU21@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171627 |
On 6/5/18 3:38 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnnhabFbpqgU3@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/4/18 11:18 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message >>> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>>>> > Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>>> >>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>>> >>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>>> >>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >>> >>> Excuse me, but I can't seem to find that condition in the 2nd. >> >> Can you quote the full second amendment? > > Yes, and doesn't alter in the least what I said above. Let's test this: quote the full second amendment without speaking of the context of the importance of the militia. This should be interesting! >> Keep in mind that the modern individual right interpretation did not >> show up in any law until 2008. > > It has existed long before that, even if we only look at cases before > SCOTUS. > > Indeed we can track the individual right interpretation right back to > quotations by the founding fathers during the time of ratification. They held many views on things... and did not agree with each other or even themselves in different times. Like modern politicians you can find quotes from them saying things that will please the crowd they speak to. If anything the media shared it less then and it was harder to compare! > If > they didn't know what it meant, then clearly we have a problem, and it > would apply to the entire Constitution because according to you they had > no idea of what they were saying. This is a direct lie about my views. It is quite telling that to try to back your views you feel the need to lie. >>> Nor would the structure of the sentence allow the opening nominative >>> absolute to establish such a connection since a nominative absolute >>> has no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence. >> >> What do you think the value of that clause is? > > A reason, and specifically a very important reason, for why this right > MUST be protected. Ah, so it provides the context. And outside of that context the right is not talked about. Interesting. > For to have the well regulated militia necessary to > secure the free state, there MUST exist a generally armed populous upon > which to draw from when such a militia is needed. There are some scholars who back that view. Most do not. Here, I will let you do your own search to avoid bias: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> > Without that armed > populous the formation of that well regulated militia would be > impossible. Further we know from the discussions that they did NOT wish > to place that power within the hands of the government for the well > founded fear that governments, in time, use those forces not to preserve > the free state, but rather to impose tyranny and oppression. They also had no issue that we can see with laws that limited arms in many ways. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already | in place during the Founding Era. Militia | regulations were the most common form of laws | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder | were also common. States prohibited the use of | firearms on certain occasions and in certain | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the | population during the Founding Era. ... | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes | providing for the confiscation of firearms from | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms | within the context of militia obligations, and | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is | hardly a modern invention. > Remember they just finished fighting regular government troops trying to > impose and maintain such tyranny and oppression upon them. > > What it does NOT do, is impose any conditions, limits, restrictions, etc > upon the main clause in which the right of the people is protected from > infringement. A claim you make without support. Sure. >> And why do you think they used the phrase "bear arms" when it includes >> that same context? > > Sorry, but simply bearing arms does not require or even imply one is > doing so for a military purpose. I may bear arms for my own self > defense, and I've already quoted a Founding Father saying such in a > quotation from the time of ratification. Can you show ANY evidence of your view on that? Showing evidence of the contrary is trivial. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html ----- A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military. But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- ... -- 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 | 2018-06-05 23:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pf7jmt$5bd$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171678 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnolgoFbpqgU21@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:38 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnnhabFbpqgU3@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/4/18 11:18 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message >>>> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>>>>> > Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>>>> >>>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>>>> >>>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >>>> >>>> Excuse me, but I can't seem to find that condition in the 2nd. >>> >>> Can you quote the full second amendment? >> >> Yes, and doesn't alter in the least what I said above. > > Let's test this: quote the full second amendment without speaking of the > context of the importance of the militia. > > This should be interesting! > >>> Keep in mind that the modern individual right interpretation did not >>> show up in any law until 2008. >> >> It has existed long before that, even if we only look at cases before >> SCOTUS. >> >> Indeed we can track the individual right interpretation right back to >> quotations by the founding fathers during the time of ratification. > > They held many views on things... and did not agree with each other or > even themselves in different times. Like modern politicians you can find > quotes from them saying things that will please the crowd they speak to. > If anything the media shared it less then and it was harder to compare! So you admit that the individual view was indeed expressed at that time despite your claims to the contrary. >> If they didn't know what it meant, then clearly we have a problem, and it >> would apply to the entire Constitution because according to you they had >> no idea of what they were saying. > > This is a direct lie about my views. On the contrary, you claim they never expressed the view you now concede that they did. So the only lies are yours. > It is quite telling that to try to back your views you feel the need to > lie. Your lies are quite reveling. >>>> Nor would the structure of the sentence allow the opening nominative >>>> absolute to establish such a connection since a nominative absolute has >>>> no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence. >>> >>> What do you think the value of that clause is? >> >> A reason, and specifically a very important reason, for why this right >> MUST be protected. > > Ah, so it provides the context. And outside of that context the right is > not talked about. Interesting. Sure, for the militia to exist the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be protected. The context is that of a right that applies to individuals outside of any militia activity. > >> For to have the well regulated militia necessary to secure the free >> state, there MUST exist a generally armed populous upon which to draw >> from when such a militia is needed. > > There are some scholars who back that view. Most do not. Here, I will let > you do your own search to avoid bias: > > <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> IOW, you want me to do your research for you. >> Without that armed populous the formation of that well regulated militia >> would be impossible. Further we know from the discussions that they did >> NOT wish to place that power within the hands of the government for the >> well founded fear that governments, in time, use those forces not to >> preserve the free state, but rather to impose tyranny and oppression. > > They also had no issue that we can see with laws that limited arms in many > ways. > > http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr Sure, but at the time the 2nd Amendment didn't apply, and I challenge the contention that just because such laws existed they were seen as something that would be acceptable to all. > | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already > | in place during the Founding Era. Militia > | regulations were the most common form of laws > | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite > | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep > | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to > | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. > | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder > | were also common. States prohibited the use of > | firearms on certain occasions and in certain > | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions > | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. > | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the > | population during the Founding Era. > ... > | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of > | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes > | providing for the confiscation of firearms from > | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to > | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms > | within the context of militia obligations, and > | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A > | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and > | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These > | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is > | hardly a modern invention. > >> Remember they just finished fighting regular government troops trying to >> impose and maintain such tyranny and oppression upon them. >> >> What it does NOT do, is impose any conditions, limits, restrictions, etc >> upon the main clause in which the right of the people is protected from >> infringement. > > A claim you make without support. Sure. > >>> And why do you think they used the phrase "bear arms" when it includes >>> that same context? >> >> Sorry, but simply bearing arms does not require or even imply one is >> doing so for a military purpose. I may bear arms for my own self defense, >> and I've already quoted a Founding Father saying such in a quotation from >> the time of ratification. > > Can you show ANY evidence of your view on that? Showing evidence of the > contrary is trivial. > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html You just posted cites to the very facts you claim to need and the assertion SCOTUS was wrong doesn't establish that it was. After all cites were provided, if you only bothered to check the evidence as you've claim to have done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnp4ohFbpqgU45@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171770 |
On 6/5/18 8:16 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnolgoFbpqgU21@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:38 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnnhabFbpqgU3@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 6/4/18 11:18 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message >>>>> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>>>>>> > Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>>>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >>>>> >>>>> Excuse me, but I can't seem to find that condition in the 2nd. >>>> >>>> Can you quote the full second amendment? >>> >>> Yes, and doesn't alter in the least what I said above. >> >> Let's test this: quote the full second amendment without speaking of >> the context of the importance of the militia. >> >> This should be interesting! Of note: you failed this. >>>> Keep in mind that the modern individual right interpretation did not >>>> show up in any law until 2008. >>> >>> It has existed long before that, even if we only look at cases before >>> SCOTUS. >>> >>> Indeed we can track the individual right interpretation right back to >>> quotations by the founding fathers during the time of ratification. >> >> They held many views on things... and did not agree with each other or >> even themselves in different times. Like modern politicians you can >> find quotes from them saying things that will please the crowd they >> speak to. If anything the media shared it less then and it was harder >> to compare! > > So you admit that the individual view was indeed expressed at that time > despite your claims to the contrary. Please quote where you think I said nobody held such a view at the time? >>> If they didn't know what it meant, then clearly we have a problem, >>> and it would apply to the entire Constitution because according to >>> you they had no idea of what they were saying. >> >> This is a direct lie about my views. > > On the contrary, you claim they never expressed the view you now concede > that they did. So the only lies are yours. I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied what you attributed to me. You lied. This is not a debate it is simply a statement of fact. >> It is quite telling that to try to back your views you feel the need >> to lie. > > Your lies are quite reveling. Here you engage in a common tactic of those who troll: on being caught doing wrong (lying in this case) you seek to put me on the defensive. Not biting. >>>>> Nor would the structure of the sentence allow the opening >>>>> nominative absolute to establish such a connection since a >>>>> nominative absolute has no grammatical connection to the rest of >>>>> the sentence. >>>> >>>> What do you think the value of that clause is? >>> >>> A reason, and specifically a very important reason, for why this >>> right MUST be protected. >> >> Ah, so it provides the context. And outside of that context the right >> is not talked about. Interesting. > > Sure, for the militia to exist the right of the people to keep and bear > arms must be protected. > > The context is that of a right that applies to individuals outside of > any militia activity. Do you think it applies to all "individuals"? Do you think convicted felons are "individuals"? >>> For to have the well regulated militia necessary to secure the free >>> state, there MUST exist a generally armed populous upon which to draw >>> from when such a militia is needed. >> >> There are some scholars who back that view. Most do not. Here, I will >> let you do your own search to avoid bias: >> >> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> > > IOW, you want me to do your research for you. This is a direct twist of what I said. Elsewhere you accused me of cherry picking. Here I did not pick at all.. and you complain about that, too. This shows you are debating just to debate -- that no matter which action I take you will claim it is wrong. Here were the top four relevant hits I found when I did that search: 1) https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2792&context=lawreview | First, the second amendment was passed as an | assurance to the states that they would have the | right to maintain their own militias. Such | militias were to be used as the centerpiece of the | nation's military power, as an alternative to a | large standing army, as a tool for the states to | ensure public order, and as a means for the states | to defend against the encroachment of federal | power. | | Second, the second amendment does not operate as a | restraint on the states. It acts as a restraint on the | federal government. | | Third, there is no substantial historical evidence for | the claim that the second amendment guarantees an | individual right to have arms for any purpose other | than participation in a state-regulated militia. | | Fourth, as long as federal gun laws do not adversely | affect the organized state militias, these laws should | encounter no second amendment problems. | | Fifth, because the state militias no longer rely on | the use of privately-owned firearms by their active | members, federal regulation of private gun ownership | poses no threat to state militias, and therefore | raises no constitutional issue. This is demonstrated | by the remarkable unanimity of federal and state | courts in upholding the constitutional validity of | firearms laws against second amendment challenges. 2) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105369 | This article argues that the second amendment was | initially proposed and passed in response to some | antifederalist fears of a standing army. The | thrust of the Amendment was to prevent the | national government from disarming the state | militias. Similarly, the Amendment allowed the | states to arm their own militias if Congress | failed to do so under its Article I, Section 8 | powers. The article notes that Madison and other | Federalists who wrote the Second Amendment were | fully aware of demands for an amendment to protect | an individual's right to own weapons, and that the | framers of the Second Amendment emphatically | rejected this concept. 3) https://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Research/Reviews/rwstand.htm | The contemporary meaning of the Second Amendment | is the same as it was at the time of its adoption. | The federal government may regulate the National | Guard, but may not disarm it against the will of | state legislatures. Nothing in the Second | Amendment, however, precludes Congress or the | states from requiring licensing and registration | of firearms; in fact, there is nothing to stop an | outright congressional ban on private ownership of | all handguns and all rifles. 4) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114 | Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason | to believe that, in significant part, James | Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his | constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, | that Congress could not use its newly-acquired | powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by | disarming the militia, on which the South relied | for slave control. >>> Without that armed populous the formation of that well regulated >>> militia would be impossible. Further we know from the discussions >>> that they did NOT wish to place that power within the hands of the >>> government for the well founded fear that governments, in time, use >>> those forces not to preserve the free state, but rather to impose >>> tyranny and oppression. >> >> They also had no issue that we can see with laws that limited arms in >> many ways. >> >> http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr > > > Sure, but at the time the 2nd Amendment didn't apply, and I challenge > the contention that just because such laws existed they were seen as > something that would be acceptable to all. Laws exist now to limit your access and use of arms: background checks and laws preventing felons from having guns, laws preventing you from having explosives except in specific situations, laws to stop you from having machine guns and ricin and dirty bombs and more. >> | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already >> | in place during the Founding Era. Militia >> | regulations were the most common form of laws >> | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite >> | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep >> | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to >> | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. >> | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder >> | were also common. States prohibited the use of >> | firearms on certain occasions and in certain >> | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions >> | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. >> | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the >> | population during the Founding Era. >> ... >> | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of >> | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes >> | providing for the confiscation of firearms from >> | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to >> | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms >> | within the context of militia obligations, and >> | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A >> | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and >> | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These >> | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is >> | hardly a modern invention. >> >>> Remember they just finished fighting regular government troops trying >>> to impose and maintain such tyranny and oppression upon them. >>> >>> What it does NOT do, is impose any conditions, limits, restrictions, >>> etc upon the main clause in which the right of the people is >>> protected from infringement. >> >> A claim you make without support. Sure. >> >>>> And why do you think they used the phrase "bear arms" when it >>>> includes that same context? >>> >>> Sorry, but simply bearing arms does not require or even imply one is >>> doing so for a military purpose. I may bear arms for my own self >>> defense, and I've already quoted a Founding Father saying such in a >>> quotation from the time of ratification. >> >> Can you show ANY evidence of your view on that? Showing evidence of >> the contrary is trivial. >> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html >> > > You just posted cites to the very facts you claim to need and the > assertion SCOTUS was wrong doesn't establish that it was. You might think such judicial activism is right or wrong -- that is a matter of opinion. > After all cites were provided, if you only bothered to check the > evidence as you've claim to have done. I have checked the evidence and, thus, your claim is inaccurate. -- 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 | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.357c69badf7940e6993bee@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #170269 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <fnemv5FsksjU3@mid.individual.net>, vallor@cultnix.org says... > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 22:00:54 -0700, Snit wrote: > > > On 6/1/18 9:54 PM, vallor wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:53:44 -0400, Scout wrote: > >> > >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > >>> news:fnecu9Fr49cU3@mid.individual.net... > >> > >> > >>>> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other > >>>> context. > >>> > >>> Bullshit. It mentions the context of the right of the people. > >>> > >>> Which right, BTW, is not tied to ANY militia context. > >>> > >>> > >> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free > >> State, the right of the *PEOPLE* to *KEEP* and *BEAR* Arms, shall not > >> be infringed. [emph. added] > >> > >> *PEOPLE* > >> > >> Now get back in your clown car, Snit. > >> > > Militia. > > > > Bear arms. > > > > Those words and terms have meaning. > > The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, not > limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. > > But you already knew that, didn't you? That's what I like about you: > your attention to detail. Arm bears. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 01:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <petbkb$atj$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170265 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnemk6Fsn82U1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 9:54 PM, vallor wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:53:44 -0400, Scout wrote: >> >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnecu9Fr49cU3@mid.individual.net... >> >>> >>>> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other >>>> context. >>> >>> Bullshit. It mentions the context of the right of the people. >>> >>> Which right, BTW, is not tied to ANY militia context. >>> >> >> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free >> State, the right of the *PEOPLE* to *KEEP* and *BEAR* Arms, shall not be >> infringed. [emph. added] >> >> *PEOPLE* >> >> Now get back in your clown car, Snit. >> > Militia. Sub-group of the people. Oh, and the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. > > Bear arms. To carry weapons > Those words and terms have meaning. Yea, and you apparently don't care what they really are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fneqrgFtdvgU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170286 |
On 6/1/18 10:53 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnemk6Fsn82U1@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 9:54 PM, vallor wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:53:44 -0400, Scout wrote: >>> >>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fnecu9Fr49cU3@mid.individual.net... >>> >>>> >>>>> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other >>>>> context. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. It mentions the context of the right of the people. >>>> >>>> Which right, BTW, is not tied to ANY militia context. >>>> >>> >>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free >>> State, the right of the *PEOPLE* to *KEEP* and *BEAR* Arms, shall not be >>> infringed. [emph. added] >>> >>> *PEOPLE* >>> >>> Now get back in your clown car, Snit. >>> >> Militia. > > Sub-group of the people. > > Oh, and the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. > >> >> Bear arms. > > To carry weapons > >> Those words and terms have meaning. > > Yea, and you apparently don't care what they really are. > > Here is what you seem to want to refute but cannot: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html ----- A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military. But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- -- 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]
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web