Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #170008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 03:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-01 18:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 13 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. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 03:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 08:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 11:59 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Slaughtering concert goers. ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 14:07 -0500
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-01 13:13 -0600
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 14:21 -0500
Re: ? Snowflake ? ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-01 13:55 -0600
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 12:56 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-01 23:35 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-01 23:57 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 00:07 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-01 20:29 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 08:32 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 08:32 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:51 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 18:09 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-01 17:10 -0600
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-02 00:13 +0100
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 18:50 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:00 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:29 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:47 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:18 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 09:14 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:48 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:28 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:14 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 00:18 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 00:18 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:20 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:03 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:26 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:54 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:58 -0600
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-02 20:57 -0600
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:04 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-02 08:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 12:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 04:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:12 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 00:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:14 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:19 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:01 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <basbd0.bn6.19.6@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #170621 |
On 2018-06-02 7:57 PM, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:45:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >>> I'm laughing my ass off watching you make a fool of yourself. >> >> I was enjoying this earlier but you have gotten to your standard insult >> and attack mode without even trying to be interesting or entertaining. I >> shall likely ignore you for a while -- in part just to see you cry. > > > Translation: Now that you have sit me in my place yet *again*, I'll > run away for a while and sock up. *again* > yay , but let me know who you are , so i don't jump all over it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? |
| Message-ID | <fngs47Fb1d7U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170549 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 6/2/2018 5:28 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fng73aF79g8U1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/2/18 9:14 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fneumeFu37vU2@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/1/18 11:47 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>>>>>>>> Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? >>>>>>>>>> <root@127.0.0.1> typed: >> >>>>>>>>>>> if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. >> >>>>>>>>>> Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? >> >>>>>>>>> I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>>>>>> statement. Odd if you do. >> >>>>>>>> Odd that you don't. >> >>>>>>> Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... >> >>>>>> Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. >>>>>> All we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. >> >>>>> Of course the context of a society requires information not present in >>>>> every sentence uttered.... >> >>>> The context wherein I take it is talk.politics.guns, and here "if you >>>> were a real man you >>>> wouldn't need a gun" is foolish. >> >>> We can debate how reasonable that statement was (I would have to look >>> into the context to even try to) but the fact is you twisted that to >>> suggest he was saying police are not real men, which required you to >>> ignore context of US society (and many others). >> >> How would you know? You just admitted that you are ignorant of the context. >> >>> You can keep trying to defend your word twisting -- does not change the >>> fact you twisted his >>> words. You pushed a pedantic interpretation. >> >> I took his words at face value. You can interpret them any way you want. >> >>>>> ... Again, not sure how you could not see this. You are, actively, >>>>> I assume, taking things FAR too literally and doing so in a way to >>>>> completely twist meanings. >> >>>> I see. Your desire to imply meaning not explicit in the written word >>>> partially explains how you can argue that "bear arms" does not mean >>>> "to carry a weapon," but a much more limited interpretation of "to >>>> carry a weapon in a military capacity." >> >>> I am saying, in both cases, we should go with the ACTUAL meaning of the >>> words and not a silly pedantic misinterpretation. >> >> Misinterpret all you want. I take them at face value. >> >>> But see how you seek to twist even that. >> >>>>>>> ... Maybe if one was not from America? >> >>>>>> I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. >> >>>>> I do not know... though I bet much is the same in most cultures. >> >>>> Most cultures don't have a constitutionally recognised right to keep >>>> and bear arms. >> >>> Irrelevant to your pedantic word play to twist meanings. >> >> No word play involved on my part. >> >>>>>>>> No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must >>>>>>>> not be real men, according to YFNPWHE. >> >>>>>>> What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. >> >>>>>> Nope. >> >>>>> I do hope you are just trolling. >> >>>> My context is talk.politics.guns. YMMV >> >>> You play pedantic word games to avoid meaning and context. >> >> You invent context to satisfy your desires. > > And so does everyone else, from the days when > rights of Englishmen used the term to mean carrying a sword while > traveling (and not traveling in the army) > > I've already posted the evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary that > the number1 definition is to carry arms while the 1.1 definition is to > serve in the army. Anyone not totally lazy can easily look it up. > > Somehow Snit seems to find some biased study for an agenda more credible > than THE accepted world reference for the English language. > > You rejected the use of the phrase to push an agenda. Not sure what else needs to be said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 08:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ |
| Message-ID | <9ZqdnUVQqurCBY_GnZ2dnUU7-UnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #170305 |
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 23:47:53 -0700, LO AND BEHOLD; ""max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>" determined that the following was of great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in <petf6j$s0f$2@dont-email.me>: >In news:fnerqlFtkheU1@mid.individual.net, Snit ><usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >>On 6/1/18 11:13 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>In news:fneq4rFtb3qU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>><usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>On 6/1/18 6:50 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>In news:mMqdnRBdYqvIBIzGnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com, Your Friendly >>>>>Neighbourhood 🐶 Whistle Holder Emeritus ??? <root@127.0.0.1> typed: > >>>>>>if you were a real man you wouldn't need a gun. > >>>>>Are you implying cops aren't real men (or women)? > >>>>I most certainly would not take that as an implication from that >>>>statement. Odd if you do. > >>>Odd that you don't. > >>Would require ignoring basic context of our society.... > >Or it would require assuming additional information not presented. All >we have to go on are the words s/he wrote. > >>... Maybe if one was not from America? > >I suspect YFNPWHE isn't. > >>>No cop will work his/her shift without a gun, therefore they must not be >>>real men, according to YFNPWHE. > >>What a bizarre set of assumptions from you. Curious. > >Nope. hvordad. har du da? -- THIS SPACE FOR RENT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA "Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer, and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate) "Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan) - "You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor - "If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode - "I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfefd18c9a698f0a8@news.altopia.com> - Golden Killfile, June 2005 KOTM, November 2006 Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006 Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006 Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007 Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006 Busted Urinal Award, April 2007 Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007 Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006 Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008 Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007 AUK Mascot, September 2007 Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fndl5rFn1dhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170088 |
On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:27:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 6/1/18 8:12 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:46:59 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/1/18 3:21 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, Snit >>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>>>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. Article >>>>>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>>>>> >>>>>> But the second amendment has not.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> He's babbling about "Document [sic] of Confederation" and claims it >>>>> was "never repealed." >>>>> >>>> It is not current law, of course, but the language it uses, and the way >>>> it describes a militia, is enlightening. >>> >>> Well, it doesn't "describe" a militia, actually. >>> >>> No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, >>> except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United >>> States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its >>> trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of >>> peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United >>> States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison >>> the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State >>> shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, >>> sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly >>> have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and >>> tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. >> >> >> It describes the expectations > > Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >> of one, both you and I have quoted. >> >> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the second >> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. > > Well of course it does. If you read it. I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you ignore. You claim it means something other than what it says directly but offer no evidence. Not sure the value in this. -- 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 | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 17:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9vn3hd9cli0mqgcqjd3c9kin2e5ckq44ck@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170105 |
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. > >It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." >>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>> >>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the second >>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >> >> Well of course it does. If you read it. > >I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you ignore. No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right to a militia. If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." It doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fne75kFq86rU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170178 |
On 6/1/18 5:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > >>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >> >> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. > > Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." > >>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>> >>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the second >>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>> >>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >> >> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you ignore. > > No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right > to a militia. > > If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." > > It doesn't. > Nobody said it used those words. Not sure what you are arguing against. -- 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 | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40r3hdt0m8ms22ohb0mm7ei1bti2hoim77@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170192 |
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:37:08 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/1/18 5:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> >>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >>> >>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >>> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >> >> Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." >> >>>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>>> >>>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the second >>>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>>> >>>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >>> >>> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you ignore. >> >> No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right >> to a militia. >> >> If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." >> >> It doesn't. >> >Nobody said it used those words. It doesn't. That's the point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 18:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fne9bpFqieiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170200 |
On 6/1/18 6:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:37:08 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 6/1/18 5:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> >>>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >>>> >>>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >>>> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >>> >>> Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." >>> >>>>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the second >>>>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >>>> >>>> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you ignore. >>> >>> No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right >>> to a militia. >>> >>> If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." >>> >>> It doesn't. >>> >> Nobody said it used those words. > > It doesn't. That's the point. > So your point is that something nobody suggested as not the case is not the case, but you have no point on the actual topic? Whatever. This grows wearisome. -- 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 | 2018-06-01 23:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pet2ke$74n$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170202 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fne9bpFqieiU1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 6:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:37:08 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/18 5:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >>>>> >>>>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >>>>> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >>>> >>>> Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." >>>> >>>>>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the >>>>>>> second >>>>>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >>>>> >>>>> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you >>>>> ignore. >>>> >>>> No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right >>>> to a militia. >>>> >>>> If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." >>>> >>>> It doesn't. >>>> >>> Nobody said it used those words. >> >> It doesn't. That's the point. >> > So your point is that something nobody suggested as not the case Excellent so you agree you did NOT suggest the 2nd protects only the rights of the State or those in the militia to keep and bear arms. Then it looks like we're done here. You just renounced your whole argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 20:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnehhaFrrtgU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170238 |
On 6/1/18 8:11 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fne9bpFqieiU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 6:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:37:08 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/1/18 5:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >>>>>> >>>>>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >>>>>> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." >>>>> >>>>>>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the >>>>>>>> second >>>>>>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you >>>>>> ignore. >>>>> >>>>> No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right >>>>> to a militia. >>>>> >>>>> If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't. >>>>> >>>> Nobody said it used those words. >>> >>> It doesn't. That's the point. >>> >> So your point is that something nobody suggested as not the case > > Excellent so you agree you did NOT suggest the 2nd protects only the > rights of the State or those in the militia to keep and bear arms. > > Then it looks like we're done here. > > You just renounced your whole argument. > > You are twisting the meaning of "bear arms". Until you stop doing so there is no real discussion here -- you want to use terms in non-standard ways to "prove" some point. Not really interested in such nonsense. -- 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 | 2018-06-02 01:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pet9rt$2vs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170244 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnehhaFrrtgU3@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 8:11 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fne9bpFqieiU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/1/18 6:00 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:37:08 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/18 5:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously >>>>>>>> maintained. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >>>>>>> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the >>>>>>>>> second >>>>>>>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you >>>>>>> ignore. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right >>>>>> to a militia. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." >>>>>> >>>>>> It doesn't. >>>>>> >>>>> Nobody said it used those words. >>>> >>>> It doesn't. That's the point. >>>> >>> So your point is that something nobody suggested as not the case >> >> Excellent so you agree you did NOT suggest the 2nd protects only the >> rights of the State or those in the militia to keep and bear arms. >> >> Then it looks like we're done here. >> >> You just renounced your whole argument. >> >> > You are twisting the meaning of "bear arms". No, I'm using the meaning of bear arms. Which is to carry arms. You can do that in a military manner, a civilian manner, and even in a personal manner. >Until you stop doing so there is no real discussion here I'm sorry if I'm not going to allow you to set definitions to suit yourself particularly when no such definitions exist in the manner you wish to assert they do. But feel free to support your claim of the specific and ONLY definition of "bear arms" as it applied to Colonial times. > -- you want to use terms in non-standard ways to "prove" some point. Not > really interested in such nonsense. No, to bear arms is quite generic and has none of the connotations as you're attempting to imply it does. It's a common gun control advocate tactic to imply a military meaning when historical references also regularly show it to clearly apply to non-military activities. For example in 1780, Lord Richmond protested certain actions taken by the king to disarm citizens and spoke of "the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defence". So clearly one could indeed keep and bear arms for SELF DEFENSE. To bear arms, means no more nor no less than to carry weapons. Period.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 22:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnepcpFt6rjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170272 |
On 6/1/18 10:09 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> You are twisting the meaning of "bear arms". > > No, I'm using the meaning of bear arms. Cool to see the change. <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. ----- If you truly are using it in the common way then we have no disagreement on this. Fair enough. But below you use it in ways other than that. Sigh. Bottom line: you want to play word games. Not interested. > > Which is to carry arms. You can do that in a military manner, a civilian > manner, and even in a personal manner. > >> Until you stop doing so there is no real discussion here > > I'm sorry if I'm not going to allow you to set definitions to suit > yourself particularly when no such definitions exist in the manner you > wish to assert they do. > > But feel free to support your claim of the specific and ONLY definition > of "bear arms" as it applied to Colonial times. > >> -- you want to use terms in non-standard ways to "prove" some point. >> Not really interested in such nonsense. > > No, to bear arms is quite generic and has none of the connotations as > you're attempting to imply it does. It's a common gun control advocate > tactic to imply a military meaning when historical references also > regularly show it to clearly apply to non-military activities. > > For example in 1780, Lord Richmond protested certain actions taken by > the king to disarm citizens and spoke of "the constitutional right of > Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defence". Ah ha! You found ONE quote. One. From 1780. And in the context of a group of people forming a militia to defend themselves from another. Oh. So it was not an individual context there, either. But, I will grant, it was the best effort I have seen to date. If you really bought into it yourself you would have provided the source. > So clearly one could indeed keep and bear arms for SELF DEFENSE. Based on the group context you provided? > To bear arms, means no more nor no less than to carry weapons. Period. > 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. ----- You keep looking for those zebras! -- 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 | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 04:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6815hd13b9qih15bn57lnbbb968k5c4so9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170202 |
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:14:33 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >This grows wearisome. You're referring to your inability to follow a thread, I'm assuming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 10:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fng1epF662sU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170325 |
On 6/2/18 4:53 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:14:33 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> This grows wearisome. > > You're referring to your inability to follow a thread, I'm assuming. > You assume bizarre things. Fair enough. -- 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 00:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf53p4$s94$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170325 |
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message news:6815hd13b9qih15bn57lnbbb968k5c4so9@4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:14:33 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >>This grows wearisome. > > You're referring to your inability to follow a thread, I'm assuming. Or maybe that everyone keeps refuting his bullshit claims with irrefutable facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pet2kd$74n$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170192 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fne75kFq86rU2@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 5:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> >>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >>> >>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >>> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >> >> Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." >> >>>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>>> >>>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the >>>>> second >>>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>>> >>>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >>> >>> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you ignore. >> >> No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right >> to a militia. >> >> If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." >> >> It doesn't. >> > Nobody said it used those words. Not sure what you are arguing against. Then we still have the right of the people and the people can still keep and bear arms without any need to be involved with any militia whatsoever. Because militia involvement doesn't define who is one of the people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 20:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnehe9FrrtgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170237 |
On 6/1/18 8:09 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fne75kFq86rU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 5:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> >>>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >>>> >>>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >>>> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >>> >>> Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." >>> >>>>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the >>>>>> second >>>>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >>>> >>>> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you ignore. >>> >>> No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right >>> to a militia. >>> >>> If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." >>> >>> It doesn't. >>> >> Nobody said it used those words. Not sure what you are arguing against. > > Then we still have the right of the people and the people can still keep > and bear arms without any need to be involved with any militia > whatsoever. Because militia involvement doesn't define who is one of the > people. Sounds like you are using the phrase "bear arms" to mean to defend yourself personally... a non-standard form. Or do you mean it in a different way than that? -- 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 | 2018-06-02 00:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pet8h9$sml$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170243 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnehe9FrrtgU2@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 8:09 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fne75kFq86rU2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/1/18 5:09 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:30:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >>>>> >>>>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >>>>> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >>>> >>>> Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't "define a militia." >>>> >>>>>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the >>>>>>> second >>>>>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >>>>> >>>>> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you >>>>> ignore. >>>> >>>> No, it's important to have a militia. But it doesn't limit the right >>>> to a militia. >>>> >>>> If it did, it would say, "Right of the states." >>>> >>>> It doesn't. >>>> >>> Nobody said it used those words. Not sure what you are arguing against. >> >> Then we still have the right of the people and the people can still keep >> and bear arms without any need to be involved with any militia >> whatsoever. Because militia involvement doesn't define who is one of the >> people. > > Sounds like you are using the phrase "bear arms" to mean to defend > yourself personally... a non-standard form. No, you can bear arms for any number of reasons. You can bear arms against the king. You can bear arms for the king. You can bear arms against an adversary. You can bear arms to hunt. Simply bearing arms, means nothing more or less than you have weapons with you. > Or do you mean it in a different way than that? No, I mean it exactly the way it was properly used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 22:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnemtfFsn82U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170266 |
On 6/1/18 9:47 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> Sounds like you are using the phrase "bear arms" to mean to defend >> yourself personally... a non-standard form. > > No, you can bear arms for any number of reasons. > You can bear arms against the king. > You can bear arms for the king. > You can bear arms against an adversary. > You can bear arms to hunt. > > Simply bearing arms, means nothing more or less than you have weapons > with you. > > > >> Or do you mean it in a different way than that? > > No, I mean it exactly the way it was properly used. So your view is tied to twisting the meaning of "bear arms" to a non-standard use. Fair enough. <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> ----- 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 | 2018-06-02 01:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <petbka$atj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170267 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnemtfFsn82U3@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 9:47 PM, Scout wrote: > ... >>> Sounds like you are using the phrase "bear arms" to mean to defend >>> yourself personally... a non-standard form. >> >> No, you can bear arms for any number of reasons. >> You can bear arms against the king. >> You can bear arms for the king. >> You can bear arms against an adversary. >> You can bear arms to hunt. >> >> Simply bearing arms, means nothing more or less than you have weapons >> with you. >> >> >> >>> Or do you mean it in a different way than that? >> >> No, I mean it exactly the way it was properly used. > > > So your view is tied to twisting the meaning of "bear arms" to a > non-standard use. Fair enough. No, it's the meaning of "bear arms". There is no military connection declared, intended or implied. But hey, you want to claim it only means a military activity, then it's up to you to prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web