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 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 10:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fng2ucF6gapU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170379 |
On 6/2/18 6:51 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> 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 . > > Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen > slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. > Many gun owners want their boom sticks (and by extension themselves, since rights apply to them and not objects) to be treated in ways that other dangerous tools are not. This is the very definition of what a "special entitlement" is. They demand special entitlements and work to twist the meaning of words to try to get them. Then they cry how they are being abuses when others push BACK against their demands for equal rights. It is madness. There is no significant group insisting that cars not be made more safe, given the harm tied to them. There is no significant group doing that with roads. Nor pools. Nor food safety laws (though the food industry does try to limit those). There is no significant group pushing to stop research on falls or other common forms of injury and death, and no bans on such research. -- 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 10:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <0tl5hdhf786ombs6ep25sqsc57uoc2tdfn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170456 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:37:15 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/2/18 6:51 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>> 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 . >> >> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >> >Many gun owners want their boom sticks (and by extension themselves, >since rights apply to them and not objects) to be treated in ways that >other dangerous tools are not. This is the very definition of what a >"special entitlement" is. Wrong. There is no special entitlement. It's a right. >They demand special entitlements and work to twist the meaning of words >to try to get them. ROFLMAO Most gun grabbers have no fucking idea of the meaning of "the words." >Then they cry how they are being abuses when others push BACK against >their demands for equal rights. You can have guns too, not a problem. >It is madness. There is no significant group insisting that cars not be >made more safe, given the harm tied to them. There is no significant >group doing that with roads. Nor pools. Nor food safety laws (though the >food industry does try to limit those). There is no significant group >pushing to stop research on falls or other common forms of injury and >death, and no bans on such research. There is no ban on gun research. Each and EVERY attempt by gun grabbers to promote "safety" is only to grab guns down the line somewhere. EVERY attempt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 11:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fng4a2F6me4U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170467 |
On 6/2/18 10:48 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:37:15 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 6:51 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>> 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 . >>> >>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>> >> Many gun owners want their boom sticks (and by extension themselves, >> since rights apply to them and not objects) to be treated in ways that >> other dangerous tools are not. This is the very definition of what a >> "special entitlement" is. > > Wrong. There is no special entitlement. It's a right. > >> They demand special entitlements and work to twist the meaning of words >> to try to get them. > > ROFLMAO > > Most gun grabbers have no fucking idea of the meaning of "the words." > >> Then they cry how they are being abuses when others push BACK against >> their demands for equal rights. > > You can have guns too, not a problem. > >> It is madness. There is no significant group insisting that cars not be >> made more safe, given the harm tied to them. There is no significant >> group doing that with roads. Nor pools. Nor food safety laws (though the >> food industry does try to limit those). There is no significant group >> pushing to stop research on falls or other common forms of injury and >> death, and no bans on such research. > > There is no ban on gun research. > > Each and EVERY attempt by gun grabbers to promote "safety" is only to > grab guns down the line somewhere. > > EVERY attempt. Thank you for the fine example of what I was talking about... the demand for special entitlements and denial of simple facts and twisting of words to say you are somehow a victim to not get them. Curious: did you do it for demonstration purposes, for which it serves quite well, or were you actually trying to be serious? If the latter... wow... that is sorta funny! -- 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 13:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <1dv5hddisvfcu6t3b5k0d445a5soe8kiuv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170476 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 11:00:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/2/18 10:48 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:37:15 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/18 6:51 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>> 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 . >>>> >>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>> >>> Many gun owners want their boom sticks (and by extension themselves, >>> since rights apply to them and not objects) to be treated in ways that >>> other dangerous tools are not. This is the very definition of what a >>> "special entitlement" is. >> >> Wrong. There is no special entitlement. It's a right. >> >>> They demand special entitlements and work to twist the meaning of words >>> to try to get them. >> >> ROFLMAO >> >> Most gun grabbers have no fucking idea of the meaning of "the words." >> >>> Then they cry how they are being abuses when others push BACK against >>> their demands for equal rights. >> >> You can have guns too, not a problem. >> >>> It is madness. There is no significant group insisting that cars not be >>> made more safe, given the harm tied to them. There is no significant >>> group doing that with roads. Nor pools. Nor food safety laws (though the >>> food industry does try to limit those). There is no significant group >>> pushing to stop research on falls or other common forms of injury and >>> death, and no bans on such research. >> >> There is no ban on gun research. > > >> Each and EVERY attempt by gun grabbers to promote "safety" is only to >> grab guns down the line somewhere. >> >> EVERY attempt. > >Thank you for the fine example of what I was talking about... the demand >for special entitlements So you keep claiming. But a right is not an entitlement. Maybe you need to look up that word?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 13:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fngd75F8a4tU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170500 |
On 6/2/18 1:27 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 11:00:34 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 10:48 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:37:15 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/2/18 6:51 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>> 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 . >>>>> >>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>>> >>>> Many gun owners want their boom sticks (and by extension themselves, >>>> since rights apply to them and not objects) to be treated in ways that >>>> other dangerous tools are not. This is the very definition of what a >>>> "special entitlement" is. >>> >>> Wrong. There is no special entitlement. It's a right. >>> >>>> They demand special entitlements and work to twist the meaning of words >>>> to try to get them. >>> >>> ROFLMAO >>> >>> Most gun grabbers have no fucking idea of the meaning of "the words." >>> >>>> Then they cry how they are being abuses when others push BACK against >>>> their demands for equal rights. >>> >>> You can have guns too, not a problem. >>> >>>> It is madness. There is no significant group insisting that cars not be >>>> made more safe, given the harm tied to them. There is no significant >>>> group doing that with roads. Nor pools. Nor food safety laws (though the >>>> food industry does try to limit those). There is no significant group >>>> pushing to stop research on falls or other common forms of injury and >>>> death, and no bans on such research. >>> >>> There is no ban on gun research. >>> >>> Each and EVERY attempt by gun grabbers to promote "safety" is only to >>> grab guns down the line somewhere. >>> >>> EVERY attempt. >> >> Thank you for the fine example of what I was talking about... the demand >> for special entitlements > > So you keep claiming. But a right is not an entitlement. > > Maybe you need to look up that word? > I have no such need to know you are working to defend your "right" to a special entitlement. Again: these things do not apply to cars or pools or slippery sidewalks, these things do not apply to the food we eat nor the air we breath. In each case the government, for the promotion of the general welfare of the people, works to have regulations and policies which promote safety. While they often do this poorly (no doubt) the idea is to have evidence-based policies which work as well as we can have them work while respecting the rights of the people. There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- that this would not also apply to guns. -- 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 16:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <aob6hdte5ur56pgbtoppumjenjq012qck7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170504 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:32:36 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >I have no such need to know you are working to defend your "right" to a >special entitlement. That's excellent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <MEHQC.141538$mD.36483@fx31.iad> |
| In reply to | #170536 |
On 6/2/2018 7:58 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:32:36 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> I have no such need to know you are working to defend your "right" to a >> special entitlement. > > That's excellent. > No it's not excellent. Snit is babbling on denying that rights exist at all. He is making the argument that all things come from government "entitlements". It's why we call them "gun buybacks" because owning a gun is a special entitlement granted by the government. Governments only ALLOW the entitled to own them and can take them back at will. Obviously Snit has never read the Declaration of Independence or not believed it if he did. The idea of "rights" sometimes called "human rights" are that just by being born here a creature attains certain rights. One of those is the right to life which obviously is all about self-defense. Yes, you can be murdered, but that does not mean you were not granted a life to live when you were born and an ability to defend that life. To say self-defense is a privilege only enjoyed by those in power and by those to whom they bestow that privilege denies self-defense as a right. It means that nobody's life is worth anything as only the few have lives that are worth defending. Needless to say while such views can be popular among certain ruling classes, they are not well received among the world human population in general.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 18:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fngvq5Fbk5tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170582 |
On 6/2/18 6:38 PM, benj wrote: > On 6/2/2018 7:58 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:32:36 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I have no such need to know you are working to defend your "right" to a >>> special entitlement. >> >> That's excellent. >> > No it's not excellent. Snit is babbling on denying that rights exist at > all. He is making the argument that all things come from government > "entitlements". It's why we call them "gun buybacks" because owning a > gun is a special entitlement granted by the government. Governments only > ALLOW the entitled to own them and can take them back at will. > > Obviously Snit has never read the Declaration of Independence or not > believed it if he did. The idea of "rights" sometimes called "human > rights" are that just by being born here a creature attains certain > rights. One of those is the right to life which obviously is all about > self-defense. Yes, you can be murdered, but that does not mean you were > not granted a life to live when you were born and an ability to defend > that life. > > To say self-defense is a privilege only enjoyed by those in power and by > those to whom they bestow that privilege denies self-defense as a right. > It means that nobody's life is worth anything as only the few have lives > that are worth defending. Needless to say while such views can be > popular among certain ruling classes, they are not well received among > the world human population in general. An *EXCELLENT* example of the types of bizarre twists and outright lies you and other gun nuts push when you cannot support your views. Thanks for the example I can point to in the future! -- 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 | 2018-06-03 03:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnh6puFcefgU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170587 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:49:56 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 6:38 PM, benj wrote: >> On 6/2/2018 7:58 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:32:36 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I have no such need to know you are working to defend your "right" to >>>> a special entitlement. >>> >>> That's excellent. >>> >> No it's not excellent. Snit is babbling on denying that rights exist at >> all. He is making the argument that all things come from government >> "entitlements". It's why we call them "gun buybacks" because owning a >> gun is a special entitlement granted by the government. Governments >> only ALLOW the entitled to own them and can take them back at will. >> >> Obviously Snit has never read the Declaration of Independence or not >> believed it if he did. The idea of "rights" sometimes called "human >> rights" are that just by being born here a creature attains certain >> rights. One of those is the right to life which obviously is all about >> self-defense. Yes, you can be murdered, but that does not mean you were >> not granted a life to live when you were born and an ability to defend >> that life. >> >> To say self-defense is a privilege only enjoyed by those in power and >> by those to whom they bestow that privilege denies self-defense as a >> right. >> It means that nobody's life is worth anything as only the few have >> lives that are worth defending. Needless to say while such views can be >> popular among certain ruling classes, they are not well received among >> the world human population in general. > > An *EXCELLENT* example of the types of bizarre twists and outright lies > you and other gun nuts push when you cannot support your views. Thanks > for the example I can point to in the future! More kafkatrapping, and a non sequitur to boot. The post by benj is exactly correct. Don't make me start posting from the DoI. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnha2rFd97nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170649 |
On 6/2/18 8:49 PM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:49:56 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 6:38 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 6/2/2018 7:58 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:32:36 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have no such need to know you are working to defend your "right" to >>>>> a special entitlement. >>>> >>>> That's excellent. >>>> >>> No it's not excellent. Snit is babbling on denying that rights exist at >>> all. He is making the argument that all things come from government >>> "entitlements". It's why we call them "gun buybacks" because owning a >>> gun is a special entitlement granted by the government. Governments >>> only ALLOW the entitled to own them and can take them back at will. >>> >>> Obviously Snit has never read the Declaration of Independence or not >>> believed it if he did. The idea of "rights" sometimes called "human >>> rights" are that just by being born here a creature attains certain >>> rights. One of those is the right to life which obviously is all about >>> self-defense. Yes, you can be murdered, but that does not mean you were >>> not granted a life to live when you were born and an ability to defend >>> that life. >>> >>> To say self-defense is a privilege only enjoyed by those in power and >>> by those to whom they bestow that privilege denies self-defense as a >>> right. >>> It means that nobody's life is worth anything as only the few have >>> lives that are worth defending. Needless to say while such views can be >>> popular among certain ruling classes, they are not well received among >>> the world human population in general. >> >> An *EXCELLENT* example of the types of bizarre twists and outright lies >> you and other gun nuts push when you cannot support your views. Thanks >> for the example I can point to in the future! > > More kafkatrapping, and a non sequitur to boot. > > The post by benj is exactly correct. Don't make me start posting from > the DoI. > What to you is "exactly correct" about telling lies about my views. Let me be clear: * I do not deny the existence of rights. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of my view where I promote equal rights for all over special entitlements for anyone. So the first sentence gets my views 100% wrong. * I do not say, suggest, hint, or imply that all "things" come from the government, nor do I suggest they should. This is another direct and absurd lie about my views. * I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that owning a gun is a "special entitlement". That, too, is a direct lie about my view. I could go on pretty much sentence by sentence. What benj did was toss in his white flag -- he could not refute what I said and he is not mature enough to admit to his failure so he worked to put me on the defensive with lies. It is a very common trolling technique... designed to change the topic to the target defending themselves and not speaking on the actual topic. And you fell for it. You slurped it up and bought it. Meanwhile my views on guns are all easily supportable. I have no need to lie about ANYONE. I am happy to go back to the topic. Here, from an off-the-cuff list from a recent post: * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action". * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. * I back evidence-based policies. Care to talk about those things? -- 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 | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 22:47 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <kls6hdlnv63dul6b3k09b6ipi0vd52avu9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170671 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:45:14 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/2/18 8:49 PM, vallor wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:49:56 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/18 6:38 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 6/2/2018 7:58 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:32:36 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I have no such need to know you are working to defend your "right" to >>>>>> a special entitlement. >>>>> >>>>> That's excellent. >>>>> >>>> No it's not excellent. Snit is babbling on denying that rights exist at >>>> all. He is making the argument that all things come from government >>>> "entitlements". It's why we call them "gun buybacks" because owning a >>>> gun is a special entitlement granted by the government. Governments >>>> only ALLOW the entitled to own them and can take them back at will. >>>> >>>> Obviously Snit has never read the Declaration of Independence or not >>>> believed it if he did. The idea of "rights" sometimes called "human >>>> rights" are that just by being born here a creature attains certain >>>> rights. One of those is the right to life which obviously is all about >>>> self-defense. Yes, you can be murdered, but that does not mean you were >>>> not granted a life to live when you were born and an ability to defend >>>> that life. >>>> >>>> To say self-defense is a privilege only enjoyed by those in power and >>>> by those to whom they bestow that privilege denies self-defense as a >>>> right. >>>> It means that nobody's life is worth anything as only the few have >>>> lives that are worth defending. Needless to say while such views can be >>>> popular among certain ruling classes, they are not well received among >>>> the world human population in general. >>> >>> An *EXCELLENT* example of the types of bizarre twists and outright lies >>> you and other gun nuts push when you cannot support your views. Thanks >>> for the example I can point to in the future! >> >> More kafkatrapping, and a non sequitur to boot. >> >> The post by benj is exactly correct. Don't make me start posting from >> the DoI. >> >What to you is "exactly correct" about telling lies about my views. Let >me be clear: > >* I do not deny the existence of rights. It is, in fact, the exact >opposite of my view where I promote equal rights for all over special >entitlements for anyone. So the first sentence gets my views 100% wrong. > >* I do not say, suggest, hint, or imply that all "things" come from the >government, nor do I suggest they should. This is another direct and >absurd lie about my views. > >* I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that owning a gun is a >"special entitlement". That, too, is a direct lie about my view. > >I could go on pretty much sentence by sentence. What benj did was toss >in his white flag -- he could not refute what I said and he is not >mature enough to admit to his failure so he worked to put me on the >defensive with lies. It is a very common trolling technique... designed >to change the topic to the target defending themselves and not speaking >on the actual topic. > >And you fell for it. You slurped it up and bought it. > >Meanwhile my views on guns are all easily supportable. I have no need to >lie about ANYONE. I am happy to go back to the topic. Here, from an >off-the-cuff list from a recent post: > >* The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much > exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed > action". > >* Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of > the country which were never, as far as I can find, > challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it > a hard sale to say they were against the second > amendment. > >* Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported > the states rights view. > >* We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from > mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun > laws. > >* We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on > arms... what one could call "infringements". > >* We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as > we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything > else that is tied to death and injuries. > >* I back evidence-based policies. > >Care to talk about those things? Did you write that or copy and paste it hoping it was pertinent to the conversation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 05:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pevv11$jvq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170672 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:47:43 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:45:14 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >>On 6/2/18 8:49 PM, vallor wrote: >>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 18:49:56 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/2/18 6:38 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 6/2/2018 7:58 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:32:36 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have no such need to know you are working to defend your "right" >>>>>>> to a special entitlement. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's excellent. >>>>>> >>>>> No it's not excellent. Snit is babbling on denying that rights exist >>>>> at all. He is making the argument that all things come from >>>>> government "entitlements". It's why we call them "gun buybacks" >>>>> because owning a gun is a special entitlement granted by the >>>>> government. Governments only ALLOW the entitled to own them and can >>>>> take them back at will. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously Snit has never read the Declaration of Independence or not >>>>> believed it if he did. The idea of "rights" sometimes called "human >>>>> rights" are that just by being born here a creature attains certain >>>>> rights. One of those is the right to life which obviously is all >>>>> about self-defense. Yes, you can be murdered, but that does not mean >>>>> you were not granted a life to live when you were born and an >>>>> ability to defend that life. >>>>> >>>>> To say self-defense is a privilege only enjoyed by those in power >>>>> and by those to whom they bestow that privilege denies self-defense >>>>> as a right. >>>>> It means that nobody's life is worth anything as only the few have >>>>> lives that are worth defending. Needless to say while such views can >>>>> be popular among certain ruling classes, they are not well received >>>>> among the world human population in general. >>>> >>>> An *EXCELLENT* example of the types of bizarre twists and outright >>>> lies you and other gun nuts push when you cannot support your views. >>>> Thanks for the example I can point to in the future! >>> >>> More kafkatrapping, and a non sequitur to boot. >>> >>> The post by benj is exactly correct. Don't make me start posting from >>> the DoI. >>> >>What to you is "exactly correct" about telling lies about my views. Let >>me be clear: >> >>* I do not deny the existence of rights. It is, in fact, the exact >>opposite of my view where I promote equal rights for all over special >>entitlements for anyone. So the first sentence gets my views 100% wrong. >> >>* I do not say, suggest, hint, or imply that all "things" come from the >>government, nor do I suggest they should. This is another direct and >>absurd lie about my views. >> >>* I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that owning a gun is a >>"special entitlement". That, too, is a direct lie about my view. >> >>I could go on pretty much sentence by sentence. What benj did was toss >>in his white flag -- he could not refute what I said and he is not >>mature enough to admit to his failure so he worked to put me on the >>defensive with lies. It is a very common trolling technique... designed >>to change the topic to the target defending themselves and not speaking >>on the actual topic. >> >>And you fell for it. You slurped it up and bought it. >> >>Meanwhile my views on guns are all easily supportable. I have no need to >>lie about ANYONE. I am happy to go back to the topic. Here, from an >>off-the-cuff list from a recent post: >> >>* The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much >> exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action". >> >>* Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of >> the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on >> second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were >> against the second amendment. >> >>* Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported >> the states rights view. >> >>* We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from >> mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. >> >>* We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on >> arms... what one could call "infringements". >> >>* We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as >> we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else >> that is tied to death and injuries. >> >>* I back evidence-based policies. >> >>Care to talk about those things? > > > Did you write that or copy and paste it hoping it was pertinent to the > conversation? Oh he wrote it, no doubt. Earlier though -- it's just an ad nauseum c/p. And it has more spin than a Kenmore Elite washing machine. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--7.10pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #170504 |
You ( Mike ) wrote: > There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- > that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your "logic". No one can argue with you because you always begin with assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, and you never budge from your bizarre assertions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <bas8cm.4fh.17.5@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #170599 |
On 2018-06-02 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > You ( Mike ) wrote: >> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. > > Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your "logic". > > No one can argue with you because you always begin with > assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, > and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. > i can argue with him and kick his ass to boot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <fnh4c4Fcb78U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170600 |
On 6/2/18 7:13 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-02 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> You ( Mike ) wrote: >>> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >>> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. >> >> Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your >> "logic". >> >> No one can argue with you because you always begin with >> assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, >> and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. >> > i can argue with him and kick his ass to boot To me it is more about support and learning than winning or losing. Maybe that is why I do not get so emotionally involved as others. -- 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 | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <basbnv.bn6.19.9@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #170632 |
On 2018-06-02 8:07 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 7:13 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-06-02 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> You ( Mike ) wrote: >>>> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >>>> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. >>> >>> Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your >>> "logic". >>> >>> No one can argue with you because you always begin with >>> assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, >>> and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. >>> >> i can argue with him and kick his ass to boot > > To me it is more about support and learning than winning or losing. > Maybe that is why I do not get so emotionally involved as others. > well just what is it you are hoping to provide support for
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <fnh71fFcp9mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170634 |
On 6/2/18 8:10 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-02 8:07 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/2/18 7:13 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2018-06-02 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>> You ( Mike ) wrote: >>>>> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >>>>> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. >>>> >>>> Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your >>>> "logic". >>>> >>>> No one can argue with you because you always begin with >>>> assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, >>>> and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. >>>> >>> i can argue with him and kick his ass to boot >> >> To me it is more about support and learning than winning or losing. >> Maybe that is why I do not get so emotionally involved as others. >> > well just what is it you are hoping to provide support for On the topic of guns, I suppose the main points would be: * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action". * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. * I back evidence-based policies. That is off the top of my head. Sure there are others (and that with more time I could word some of those better). -- 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 | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 22:03 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <cup6hd1nqoc4cumrscoc86786f66nfseml@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170650 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 20:53:18 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/2/18 8:10 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-06-02 8:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/2/18 7:13 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2018-06-02 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>> You ( Mike ) wrote: >>>>>> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >>>>>> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. >>>>> >>>>> Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your >>>>> "logic". >>>>> >>>>> No one can argue with you because you always begin with >>>>> assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, >>>>> and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. >>>>> >>>> i can argue with him and kick his ass to boot >>> >>> To me it is more about support and learning than winning or losing. >>> Maybe that is why I do not get so emotionally involved as others. >>> >> well just what is it you are hoping to provide support for > >On the topic of guns, I suppose the main points would be: > >* The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much > exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed > action". >* Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of > the country which were never, as far as I can find, > challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it > a hard sale to say they were against the second > amendment. >* Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported > the states rights view. >* We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from > mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun > laws. >* We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on > arms... what one could call "infringements". >* We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as > we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything > else that is tied to death and injuries. >* I back evidence-based policies. > >That is off the top of my head. Sure there are others (and that with >more time I could word some of those better). It's this simple, I own 3 guns, a pistol, a shotgun and a AR-15 They are mine, no one can have them or take them away from me. The shotgun is for shooting skeet...<get it> The AR-15 is just a 223 that looks scary. The pistol is for when you come and try and take them from me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 23:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <VkJQC.143097$R51.142187@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #170632 |
On 6/2/2018 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 7:13 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-06-02 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> You ( Mike ) wrote: >>>> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >>>> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. >>> >>> Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your >>> "logic". >>> >>> No one can argue with you because you always begin with >>> assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, >>> and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. >>> >> i can argue with him and kick his ass to boot > > To me it is more about support and learning than winning or losing. > Maybe that is why I do not get so emotionally involved as others. > OR maybe because you are a bot. How do you feel about having no emotions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <fnh6duFckvsU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170641 |
On 6/2/18 8:33 PM, benj wrote: > On 6/2/2018 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/2/18 7:13 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2018-06-02 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>> You ( Mike ) wrote: >>>>> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >>>>> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. >>>> >>>> Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your >>>> "logic". >>>> >>>> No one can argue with you because you always begin with >>>> assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, >>>> and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. >>>> >>> i can argue with him and kick his ass to boot >> >> To me it is more about support and learning than winning or losing. >> Maybe that is why I do not get so emotionally involved as others. >> > OR maybe because you are a bot. How do you feel about having no emotions? I have no feelings about it. :) -- 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 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web