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 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 08:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <grg2hd1k8bs2c7fm7i39vqg40n5bm6hra1@4ax.com> |
x-no-idiots: yes On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns 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... and only in 2008, through the Heller >case, was the meaning of it changed. Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the fed the power to tax and the articles did not. The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; that was seen as a local matter. When the 1787 document uses the term "a well regulated militia", it is referring to article six of the confederation document for a more precise definition. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnd47bFjo6aU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170020 |
On 6/1/18 6:08 AM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns 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... and only in 2008, through the Heller >> case, was the meaning of it changed. > > Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It > simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an > existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 > augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is > no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the > fed the power to tax and the articles did not. > > The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. > Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; that was seen > as a local matter. When the 1787 document uses the term "a well > regulated militia", it is referring to article six of the > confederation document for a more precise definition. > > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > Interesting history on it. Thank you. -- 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 21:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pestfr$g9h$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170046 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnd47bFjo6aU2@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 6:08 AM, !Jones wrote: >> x-no-idiots: yes >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns 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... and only in 2008, through the Heller >>> case, was the meaning of it changed. >> >> Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It >> simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an >> existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 >> augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is >> no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the >> fed the power to tax and the articles did not. >> >> The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. >> Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 “[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” William Grayson Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison The Federalist, No. 46 “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” Noah Webster An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787 So much for that bullshit claim by Snit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 19:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnecu9Fr49cU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170209 |
On 6/1/18 6:35 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnd47bFjo6aU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 6:08 AM, !Jones wrote: >>> x-no-idiots: yes >>> >>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns 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... and only in 2008, through the >>>> Heller >>>> case, was the meaning of it changed. >>> >>> Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It >>> simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an >>> existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 >>> augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is >>> no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the >>> fed the power to tax and the articles did not. >>> >>> The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. >>> Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; > > “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our > country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow > citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in > their right to keep and bear their private arms.” > Tench Coxe > Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 > > “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress > to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; > or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable > citizens, from keeping their own arms.” > Samuel Adams > Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 > > “[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these > altogether respected personal liberty.” > William Grayson > Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of > what became the Bill of Rights > > The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans > possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the > governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” > James Madison > The Federalist, No. 46 > > “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they > are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America > cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the > people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular > troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A > military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but > such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will > possess the power.” > Noah Webster > An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, > Philadelphia, 1787 > > > So much for that bullshit claim by Snit. You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other context. While there is some contention, from what we have seen the general view of scholars who look at the subject say the second amendment applied to state rights and not individual rights. We know that many laws have existed since the founding of the country, including ones near or at the founding, which made it illegal to even have a loaded gun in your house or to do what we now call open carry. Some laws not only required tracking of who had guns but required training and other even loyalty oaths. NONE of these, as far as we know, were challenged on second amendment terms. Even the Heller case, a 5:4 decision where judicial activism was used, specifically notes that there can be limits. When faced with those facts you point to quotes from <https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990729/america-s-founding-fathers-on-the-2a>, do not even site your source, and deem the actual evidence to be "bullshit". Um, OK. -- 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 23:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pet4cp$8ru$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170214 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnecu9Fr49cU3@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 6:35 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnd47bFjo6aU2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/1/18 6:08 AM, !Jones wrote: >>>> x-no-idiots: yes >>>> >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns 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... and only in 2008, through the >>>>> Heller >>>>> case, was the meaning of it changed. >>>> >>>> Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It >>>> simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an >>>> existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 >>>> augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is >>>> no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the >>>> fed the power to tax and the articles did not. >>>> >>>> The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. >>>> Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; >> >> “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our >> country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow >> citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in >> their right to keep and bear their private arms.” >> Tench Coxe >> Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 >> >> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress >> to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; >> or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable >> citizens, from keeping their own arms.” >> Samuel Adams >> Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 >> >> “[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these >> altogether respected personal liberty.” >> William Grayson >> Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of >> what became the Bill of Rights >> >> The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans >> possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the >> governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” >> James Madison >> The Federalist, No. 46 >> >> “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they >> are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America >> cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the >> people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular >> troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A >> military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such >> as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will >> possess the power.” >> Noah Webster >> An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, >> Philadelphia, 1787 >> >> >> So much for that bullshit claim by Snit. > > You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" is > used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to defend others? Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them when they were needed. Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 Here's another "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 Which you would tell us is false because they can only be armed while at home. > The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other > context. Bullshit. It mentions the context of the right of the people. Which right, BTW, is not tied to ANY militia context. > While there is some contention, from what we have seen the general view of > scholars who look at the subject say the second amendment applied to state > rights and not individual rights. States don't have rights, they have powers. Further the rights of a group, any group, can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals within that group. For if no individual has the right, then neither can the group as a whole. However, I will just note that the 2nd doesn't speak of the right of the states but rather the right of the people. If you don't think the Founding fathers knew the difference then why is such a difference clearly indicated in the 10th Amendment? They knew EXACTLY who they were addressing with that right of the people...and it certainly wasn't the states.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 21:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170249 |
On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >> defense. > > No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms > for a multitude of reasons including self defense. > > Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for > your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to > defend others? > > Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? > > Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have > guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them when > they were needed. > > Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. > > "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. > They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit > crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for > the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent > homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence > than an armed man." > - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist > Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to the question about the phrase! Of course the reason for that is clear: you have no counter. > Here's another > > "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) > assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise > it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times > armed." > - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to the question about the phrase! Of course the reason for that is clear: you have no counter. > Which you would tell us is false because they can only be armed while at > home. > > > >> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other >> context. > > Bullshit. It mentions the context of the right of the people. > > Which right, BTW, is not tied to ANY militia context. > >> While there is some contention, from what we have seen the general >> view of scholars who look at the subject say the second amendment >> applied to state rights and not individual rights. > > States don't have rights, they have powers. > > Further the rights of a group, any group, can be no more than the sum of > the rights of the individuals within that group. For if no individual > has the right, then neither can the group as a whole. > > However, I will just note that the 2nd doesn't speak of the right of the > states but rather the right of the people. > > If you don't think the Founding fathers knew the difference then why is > such a difference clearly indicated in the 10th Amendment? > > They knew EXACTLY who they were addressing with that right of the > people...and it certainly wasn't the states. > > So still no counter from you dealing with the phrase "bear arms". 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 | 2018-06-02 01:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <petbkb$atj$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170254 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: > ... >>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" >>> is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. >> >> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms for >> a multitude of reasons including self defense. >> >> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >> defend others? >> >> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >> >> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them when >> they were needed. >> >> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >> >> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit >> crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for >> the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, >> for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed >> man." >> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist >> Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 > > That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to the > question about the phrase! Carrying of arms = bearing arms. I've shown that. You've never managed to produce anything to refute it. Simply saying that's not what it means isn't going to cut it particularly when I have shown that it does.,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fneqr7FtdvgU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170285 |
On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >> ... >>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>> defense. >>> >>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms >>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>> >>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >>> defend others? >>> >>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>> >>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>> when they were needed. >>> >>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>> >>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and >>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to >>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater >>> confidence than an armed man." >>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >> >> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to >> the question about the phrase! > > > > Carrying of arms = bearing arms. > > I've shown that. You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. > You've never managed to produce anything to refute it. > > Simply saying that's not what it means isn't going to cut it > particularly when I have shown that it does., Here is what you seem to want to refute but cannot: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html ----- A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military. But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pev63v$62p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170294 |
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>> ... >>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>>> defense. >>>> >>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms >>>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>> >>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >>>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >>>> defend others? >>>> >>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>> >>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>> when they were needed. >>>> >>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>> >>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and >>>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to >>>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater >>>> confidence than an armed man." >>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>> >>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to >>> the question about the phrase! >> >> >> >> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >> >> I've shown that. > > You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is > contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining that someone else isn't backing up their claims? Hilarious snit. Are you hitting the glue bag again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 17:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <aa96hdt4rl8u7o8mlr3r7t1moddob4dq6u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170524 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:35:43 -0000 (UTC), simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>>>> defense. >>>>> >>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms >>>>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >>>>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >>>>> defend others? >>>>> >>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>> >>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>> when they were needed. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>> >>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and >>>>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to >>>>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater >>>>> confidence than an armed man." >>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>> >>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to >>>> the question about the phrase! >>> >>> >>> >>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>> >>> I've shown that. >> >> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. > >So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking Steve >Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining that someone >else isn't backing up their claims? >Hilarious snit. >Are you hitting the glue bag again? Do we have a netKKKop in our midst?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.357cf6abcd20ae1c993bf5@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #170527 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <aa96hdt4rl8u7o8mlr3r7t1moddob4dq6u@4ax.com>, fnvw@invalid.invalid says... > > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:35:43 -0000 (UTC), simon singh > <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: > > > >> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > >>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... > >>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: > >>>> ... > >>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear > >>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self > >>>>>> defense. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms > >>>>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. > >>>>> > >>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for > >>>>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to > >>>>> defend others? > >>>>> > >>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? > >>>>> > >>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have > >>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them > >>>>> when they were needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. > >>>>> > >>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. > >>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to > >>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and > >>>>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to > >>>>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater > >>>>> confidence than an armed man." > >>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century > >>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 > >>>> > >>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to > >>>> the question about the phrase! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. > >>> > >>> I've shown that. > >> > >> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is > >> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. > > > >So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking Steve > >Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining that someone > >else isn't backing up their claims? > >Hilarious snit. > >Are you hitting the glue bag again? > > > Do we have a netKKKop in our midst? We might have a glue bag. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fngs45Fb1d7U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170524 |
simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>>>> defense. >>>>> >>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms >>>>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >>>>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >>>>> defend others? >>>>> >>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>> >>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>> when they were needed. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>> >>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and >>>>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to >>>>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater >>>>> confidence than an armed man." >>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>> >>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to >>>> the question about the phrase! >>> >>> >>> >>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>> >>> I've shown that. >> >> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. > > So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking Steve > Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining that someone > else isn't backing up their claims? > Hilarious snit. > Are you hitting the glue bag again? > Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. What a shock!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hff0n04quzuu$.eozmjyc2ux2r$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #170563 |
On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: > simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>>>>> defense. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms >>>>>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >>>>>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >>>>>> defend others? >>>>>> >>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>>> when they were needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and >>>>>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to >>>>>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater >>>>>> confidence than an armed man." >>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>> >>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to >>>>> the question about the phrase! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>> >>>> I've shown that. >>> >>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >> >> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking Steve >> Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining that someone >> else isn't backing up their claims? >> Hilarious snit. >> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >> > > Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. > > What a shock! No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as being truthful. Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. All in a day's work, right snit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 01:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pevgsn$v4o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170575 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:10:30 -0400, Horace wrote: > On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: > >> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include >>>>>>>> self defense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear >>>>>>> arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry >>>>>>> for your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly >>>>>>> carry to defend others? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>>>> when they were needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted >>>>>>> and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than >>>>>>> to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with >>>>>>> greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>> >>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant >>>>>> to the question about the phrase! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>> >>>>> I've shown that. >>>> >>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>> >>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>> Hilarious snit. >>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>> >>> >> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >> >> What a shock! > > No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing > over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are > cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way > out other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as > being truthful. > Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is > laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. > All in a day's work, right snit? I'll be the first to admit it's entertaining watching snit lie himself into oblivion. He must be high as a kite tonight. You should have seen him when he used to huff glue and mix it with alcohol and his anxiety medications. At one point he had something like 6 sox puppets in comp.sys.mac.advocacy and they were all talking to each other. It was better than a Marx Brothers movie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 18:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fngvu2Fbk5tU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170583 |
On 6/2/18 6:39 PM, simon singh wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:10:30 -0400, Horace wrote: > >> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >> >>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include >>>>>>>>> self defense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear >>>>>>>> arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry >>>>>>>> for your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly >>>>>>>> carry to defend others? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>>>>> when they were needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted >>>>>>>> and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than >>>>>>>> to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with >>>>>>>> greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant >>>>>>> to the question about the phrase! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>> >>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>> >>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>> Hilarious snit. >>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>> >>>> >>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>> >>> What a shock! >> >> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing >> over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are >> cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way >> out other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as >> being truthful. >> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >> All in a day's work, right snit? > > I'll be the first to admit it's entertaining watching snit lie himself > into oblivion. He must be high as a kite tonight. You should have seen > him when he used to huff glue and mix it with alcohol and his anxiety > medications. At one point he had something like 6 sox puppets in > comp.sys.mac.advocacy and they were all talking to each other. > It was better than a Marx Brothers movie. > Ah, insults and accusations. How creative! -- 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 | Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 22:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vidxbch6dblj$.1a4da4c05tmkd.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #170590 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:52:02 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 6:39 PM, simon singh wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:10:30 -0400, Horace wrote: >> >>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include >>>>>>>>>> self defense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear >>>>>>>>> arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry >>>>>>>>> for your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly >>>>>>>>> carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>>>>>> when they were needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted >>>>>>>>> and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than >>>>>>>>> to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with >>>>>>>>> greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant >>>>>>>> to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>> >>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>>>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>>>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>>> >>>> What a shock! >>> >>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing >>> over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are >>> cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way >>> out other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as >>> being truthful. >>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>> All in a day's work, right snit? >> >> I'll be the first to admit it's entertaining watching snit lie himself >> into oblivion. He must be high as a kite tonight. You should have seen >> him when he used to huff glue and mix it with alcohol and his anxiety >> medications. At one point he had something like 6 sox puppets in >> comp.sys.mac.advocacy and they were all talking to each other. >> It was better than a Marx Brothers movie. >> > > Ah, insults and accusations. How creative! So you deny Simon's claims of you using sock puppets? Be careful snit, Google is very powerful. I don't think you want to go there, meat. And watching you squirm trying to cover your lies *IS* entertaining in a dark sort of way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnh0n8Fbk5tU18@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170596 |
On 6/2/18 7:04 PM, Horace wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:52:02 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 6:39 PM, simon singh wrote: >>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:10:30 -0400, Horace wrote: >>> >>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>>>>>>>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include >>>>>>>>>>> self defense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear >>>>>>>>>> arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry >>>>>>>>>> for your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly >>>>>>>>>> carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>>>>>>>>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>>>>>>>>> when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>>>>>>>>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted >>>>>>>>>> and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than >>>>>>>>>> to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with >>>>>>>>>> greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant >>>>>>>>> to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police asking >>>>>> Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are complaining >>>>>> that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over me. >>>>> >>>>> What a shock! >>>> >>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is obsessing >>>> over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in when you are >>>> cornered. And you know you have been backed into a corner with no way >>>> out other than to admit you made a statement you are unable to prove as >>>> being truthful. >>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>> >>> I'll be the first to admit it's entertaining watching snit lie himself >>> into oblivion. He must be high as a kite tonight. You should have seen >>> him when he used to huff glue and mix it with alcohol and his anxiety >>> medications. At one point he had something like 6 sox puppets in >>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy and they were all talking to each other. >>> It was better than a Marx Brothers movie. >>> >> >> Ah, insults and accusations. How creative! > > So you deny Simon's claims of you using sock puppets? > Be careful snit, Google is very powerful. > I don't think you want to go there, meat. > And watching you squirm trying to cover your lies *IS* entertaining in a > dark sort of way. > I am using you, someone's sock, for my own entertainment. -- 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 | simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 02:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pevjs4$8me$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170597 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:05:28 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 7:04 PM, Horace wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:52:02 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/18 6:39 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:10:30 -0400, Horace wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined >>>>>>>>>>> to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the >>>>>>>>>>> assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to >>>>>>>>>>> encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be >>>>>>>>>>> attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police >>>>>>> asking Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are >>>>>>> complaining that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over >>>>>> me. >>>>>> >>>>>> What a shock! >>>>> >>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>>>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>>>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>>> >>>> I'll be the first to admit it's entertaining watching snit lie >>>> himself into oblivion. He must be high as a kite tonight. You should >>>> have seen him when he used to huff glue and mix it with alcohol and >>>> his anxiety medications. At one point he had something like 6 sox >>>> puppets in comp.sys.mac.advocacy and they were all talking to each >>>> other. >>>> It was better than a Marx Brothers movie. >>>> >>>> >>> Ah, insults and accusations. How creative! >> >> So you deny Simon's claims of you using sock puppets? >> Be careful snit, Google is very powerful. >> I don't think you want to go there, meat. >> And watching you squirm trying to cover your lies *IS* entertaining in >> a dark sort of way. >> > I am using you, someone's sock, for my own entertainment. Can't answer the question can you snit. You have been trapped once again. Maybe you should find something else to occupy your time because trolling is certainly not your gift.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bas9tq.fp2.17.6@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #170604 |
On 2018-06-02 7:30 PM, simon singh wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:05:28 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 7:04 PM, Horace wrote: >>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:52:02 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/2/18 6:39 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:10:30 -0400, Horace wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined >>>>>>>>>>>> to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the >>>>>>>>>>>> assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to >>>>>>>>>>>> encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be >>>>>>>>>>>> attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police >>>>>>>> asking Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are >>>>>>>> complaining that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over >>>>>>> me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What a shock! >>>>>> >>>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>>>>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>>>>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>>>> >>>>> I'll be the first to admit it's entertaining watching snit lie >>>>> himself into oblivion. He must be high as a kite tonight. You should >>>>> have seen him when he used to huff glue and mix it with alcohol and >>>>> his anxiety medications. At one point he had something like 6 sox >>>>> puppets in comp.sys.mac.advocacy and they were all talking to each >>>>> other. >>>>> It was better than a Marx Brothers movie. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Ah, insults and accusations. How creative! >>> >>> So you deny Simon's claims of you using sock puppets? >>> Be careful snit, Google is very powerful. >>> I don't think you want to go there, meat. >>> And watching you squirm trying to cover your lies *IS* entertaining in >>> a dark sort of way. >>> >> I am using you, someone's sock, for my own entertainment. > > Can't answer the question can you snit. > You have been trapped once again. > > Maybe you should find something else to occupy your time because trolling > is certainly not your gift. > he answered the question and slapped your face at the same time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnh4khFcb78U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170609 |
On 6/2/18 7:39 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-02 7:30 PM, simon singh wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 19:05:28 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/18 7:04 PM, Horace wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:52:02 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/2/18 6:39 PM, simon singh wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:10:30 -0400, Horace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:12:55 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can >>>>>>>>>>>>> bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to >>>>>>>>>>>>> carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly carry to defend others? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could >>>>>>>>>>>>> have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns >>>>>>>>>>>>> with them when they were needed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined >>>>>>>>>>>>> to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the >>>>>>>>>>>>> assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to >>>>>>>>>>>>> encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be >>>>>>>>>>>>> attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>>>>>>>>>>>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question about the phrase! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Carrying of arms = bearing arms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've shown that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is >>>>>>>>>> contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So now after you refuse to back up your claims of the police >>>>>>>>> asking Steve Carroll to stop harassing you on usenet, you are >>>>>>>>> complaining that someone else isn't backing up their claims? >>>>>>>>> Hilarious snit. >>>>>>>>> Are you hitting the glue bag again? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gee, I stop responding to Carroll and socks start obsessing over >>>>>>>> me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a shock! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No matter what your drugged up mind is telling you, nobody is >>>>>>> obsessing over you snit. This is your coping mechanism kicking in >>>>>>> when you are cornered. And you know you have been backed into a >>>>>>> corner with no way out other than to admit you made a statement you >>>>>>> are unable to prove as being truthful. >>>>>>> Simon Sing has you backed into a corner and the rest of the group is >>>>>>> laughing at your extremely poor attempts at saving your own hide. >>>>>>> All in a day's work, right snit? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll be the first to admit it's entertaining watching snit lie >>>>>> himself into oblivion. He must be high as a kite tonight. You should >>>>>> have seen him when he used to huff glue and mix it with alcohol and >>>>>> his anxiety medications. At one point he had something like 6 sox >>>>>> puppets in comp.sys.mac.advocacy and they were all talking to each >>>>>> other. >>>>>> It was better than a Marx Brothers movie. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Ah, insults and accusations. How creative! >>>> >>>> So you deny Simon's claims of you using sock puppets? >>>> Be careful snit, Google is very powerful. >>>> I don't think you want to go there, meat. >>>> And watching you squirm trying to cover your lies *IS* entertaining in >>>> a dark sort of way. >>>> >>> I am using you, someone's sock, for my own entertainment. >> >> Can't answer the question can you snit. >> You have been trapped once again. >> >> Maybe you should find something else to occupy your time because trolling >> is certainly not your gift. >> > he answered the question and slapped your face at the same time https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2792&context=lawreview | First, the second amendment was passed as an | assurance to the states that they would have the | right to maintain their own militias. Such | militias were to be used as the centerpiece of the | nation's military power, as an alternative to a | large standing army, as a tool for the states to | ensure public order, and as a means for the states | to defend against the encroachment of federal | power. | | Second, the second amendment does not operate as a | restraint on the states. It acts as a restraint on the | federal government. | | Third, there is no substantial historical evidence for | the claim that the second amendment guarantees an | individual right to have arms for any purpose other | than participation in a state-regulated militia. | | Fourth, as long as federal gun laws do not adversely | affect the organized state militias, these laws should | encounter no second amendment problems. | | Fifth, because the state militias no longer rely on | the use of privately-owned firearms by their active | members, federal regulation of private gun ownership | poses no threat to state militias, and therefore | raises no constitutional issue. This is demonstrated | by the remarkable unanimity of federal and state | courts in upholding the constitutional validity of | firearms laws against second amendment challenges. -- 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 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web