Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #170017 > unrolled thread
| Started by | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 21 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 08:00 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:41 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 02:29 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:38 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 12:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:43 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:21 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 05:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 05:52 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 07:04 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-10 04:35 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 01:39 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 15:46 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 15:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Corwin Esterness <woolcross@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 12:00 -0600
Truth Avoidance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Truth Avoidance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:56 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Bill (not Jillians) DOW #3" <noemail@none.not> - 2018-06-09 20:06 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-12 00:11 +0100
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 17:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 22:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 11:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pcg2hdd4katg02kcoqkirpgp904dcvha42@4ax.com> |
x-no-idiots: yes On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:25:19 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were laws >against what we now call open carry, and even laws against having loaded >guns in homes. > >The nonsense we are told now is just insane. The issue, IMO, is that our gun laws are set in Washington DC and they should be regulated by the states. What is reasonable, "open carry", for example, in rural Wyoming might not be appropriate in a major city in New Jersey... and visa versa. The fed should be doing background checks making sure nobody buys or sells across a state line; other than that, they stay out of it. The gun lobby won't like that because then they'd have to buy off 50 different state legislatures instead of one. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <perhn3$34b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170017 |
In news:pcg2hdd4katg02kcoqkirpgp904dcvha42@4ax.com, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> typed: > x-big-idiot: jones > On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:25:19 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were >> laws against what we now call open carry, and even laws against >> having loaded guns in homes. >> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. > The issue, IMO, is that our gun laws are set in Washington DC and they > should be regulated by the states. What is reasonable, "open carry", > for example, in rural Wyoming might not be appropriate in a major city > in New Jersey... and visa versa. The fed should be doing background > checks making sure nobody buys or sells across a state line; other > than that, they stay out of it.... Somebody's been sipping Irish coffee. I like your idea, though: we could disband ATF and give its budget and labs to the FBI, since it's doing the NICS checks already. > The gun lobby won't like that because then they'd have to buy off 50 > different state legislatures instead of one. You meant the anti-gun lobby, right? Those guys know they don't have a prayer in about 30 states.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pestfq$g9h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170017 |
"!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message news:pcg2hdd4katg02kcoqkirpgp904dcvha42@4ax.com... > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:25:19 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were laws >>against what we now call open carry, and even laws against having loaded >>guns in homes. >> >>The nonsense we are told now is just insane. > > The issue, IMO, is that our gun laws are set in Washington DC and they > should be regulated by the states. 2nd & 14th Amendments state otherwise. > What is reasonable, "open carry", > for example, in rural Wyoming might not be appropriate in a major city > in New Jersey... and visa versa. Why not? Does the person suddenly turn into a crazed killer if exposed to an urban environment? If so, then shouldn't we ban cities?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fneconFr49cU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170208 |
On 6/1/18 6:28 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message > news:pcg2hdd4katg02kcoqkirpgp904dcvha42@4ax.com... >> x-no-idiots: yes >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:25:19 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were laws >>> against what we now call open carry, and even laws against having loaded >>> guns in homes. >>> >>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. >> >> The issue, IMO, is that our gun laws are set in Washington DC and they >> should be regulated by the states. > > 2nd & 14th Amendments state otherwise. > >> What is reasonable, "open carry", >> for example, in rural Wyoming might not be appropriate in a major city >> in New Jersey... and visa versa. > > Why not? > > Does the person suddenly turn into a crazed killer if exposed to an > urban environment? > > If so, then shouldn't we ban cities? > > What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pet4cp$8ru$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170213 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fneconFr49cU2@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 6:28 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message >> news:pcg2hdd4katg02kcoqkirpgp904dcvha42@4ax.com... >>> x-no-idiots: yes >>> >>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:25:19 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were laws >>>> against what we now call open carry, and even laws against having >>>> loaded >>>> guns in homes. >>>> >>>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. >>> >>> The issue, IMO, is that our gun laws are set in Washington DC and they >>> should be regulated by the states. >> >> 2nd & 14th Amendments state otherwise. >> Surrender noted. >>> What is reasonable, "open carry", >>> for example, in rural Wyoming might not be appropriate in a major city >>> in New Jersey... and visa versa. >> >> Why not? >> Lack of answer noted >> Does the person suddenly turn into a crazed killer if exposed to an urban >> environment? >> Lack of answer noted >> If so, then shouldn't we ban cities? >> Lack of answer noted. >> > What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? I don't see where guns cause harm. People cause harm. People misusing guns can cause harm. However, when someone uses a gun to cause harm, it's not the gun causing the harm, but the person using it. So the PROPER question would be: What is your suggestion to reduce the harm caused by violent people? To which my response would be to do something about the violent people. Specifically for repeat violent offenders: Denial of parole, early release, or anything other than serving a full sentence Don't accept plea bargains bring every charge possible call for maximum sentence for each charge require such sentences to be served consecutively rather than concurrently. Then send them to jail for a very, very, very long time. Odds are by the time they get out they will avoid any hint of violent crime or they will be so old as to not be a real threat for engaging in violent crime. Without violent criminals engaging in repeat violent offenses, then rate of violent crime will drop drastically. Further once in jail we will be in a position to prevent them from getting hold of any weapon far better than we can while they are out in society. Now that's the short term solution. The long term solution would be to identify and work to eliminate or mitigate the circumstances which are most likely to result in people turning to violent crime. For if they don't turn to violent crime in the first place then they won't be committing violent crime. However, that's hard to do when a lot of stupid people try to blame an inanimate object for the actions of some violent individual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnejfiFs6f7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170248 |
On 6/1/18 8:27 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? > > I don't see where guns cause harm. So you will not answer the question. You have NO ideas. Fair enough... it is not an easy question. But here are some things that will NOT work: * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law. * Letting the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings, largely control our gun laws. * Working to STOP research to better understand the problem and possible solutions. Those are idiotic things... but we, as a country, do them. > People cause harm. > > People misusing guns can cause harm. > > However, when someone uses a gun to cause harm, it's not the gun causing > the harm, but the person using it. What are you even responding to here? Just blabbering talking points against straw men. Whatever. Not interested. > So the PROPER question would be: I asked the proper question. You avoided it. You have NO answer. As I said, I think that is OK... it is not an easy problem to solve. > What is your suggestion to reduce the harm caused by violent people? That question has unsupported assumptions... ignoring the fact that merely having a gun in the home, for example, has a stronger tie to homicide than does domestic abuse or drug abuse (both of which have pretty strong ties). Seems people who are not generally violent, when they have a weapon that makes violence very easy, have a stronger tendency to engage in violence than do people without such weapons. In other words, this violence you speak of is not just about the person but also the environment. When you ignore a component of this (which you do here AND when you focused on just the gun, above) you are showing a lack of understanding. > To which my response would be to do something about the violent people. > > Specifically for repeat violent offenders: > > Denial of parole, early release, or anything other than serving a full > sentence > Don't accept plea bargains > bring every charge possible > call for maximum sentence for each charge > require such sentences to be served consecutively rather than concurrently. There might be some value to some of those things but we already have a higher incarceration rate than, I think, ANY other country in the world. > Then send them to jail for a very, very, very long time. > > Odds are by the time they get out they will avoid any hint of violent > crime or they will be so old as to not be a real threat for engaging in > violent crime. What makes you think they would avoid "any hint of violent crime"? > Without violent criminals engaging in repeat violent offenses, then rate > of violent crime will drop drastically. You are focusing on crime only. Interesting movement of goal posts on your part. Quite telling. > Further once in jail we will be in a position to prevent them from > getting hold of any weapon far better than we can while they are out in > society. > > Now that's the short term solution. > > The long term solution would be to identify and work to eliminate or > mitigate the circumstances which are most likely to result in people > turning to violent crime. > > For if they don't turn to violent crime in the first place then they > won't be committing violent crime. > > However, that's hard to do when a lot of stupid people try to blame an > inanimate object for the actions of some violent individual. Blame an inanimate object? What? Do you think it is blaming inanimate objects to improve the way cars and roads are made? It is clear you are not even willing to talk about the problem and merely want to erect straw men to shoot down. -- 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 01:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <petbka$atj$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170252 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnejfiFs6f7U1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 8:27 PM, Scout wrote: > ... >>> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? >> >> I don't see where guns cause harm. > > So you will not answer the question. No, I am answering the question. Sorry, if the answer isn't what you wanted. >You have NO ideas. Fair enough... > it is not an easy question. And yet, you do have ideas and they appear below. So clearly your mouth is flapping in the wind even as your brain has no idea. > But here are some things that will NOT work: > > * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law. Which is what you are attempting to do. > * Letting the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings, largely > control our gun laws. The NRA can't even introduce legislation and they certainly can't vote on it. Must really piss you off that so many people don't buy into your lies. > > * Working to STOP research to better understand the problem and possible > solutions. Not at all, but first you have to identify the cause, and that's not guns. So while you're wasting time trying to understand how guns are the problem and 'solutions' for the problem you don't understand.....nothing about the real problem is done because you're trying to blame an object for what someone does with it. > > Those are idiotic things... but we, as a country, do them. No, as you said the NRA opposes such stupidity. Now, come up with the actual cause (violent criminals) and a solution (lock up violent criminals) then you will have a proposal for how to impose a solution that actually addresses the cause and will do some good. >> People cause harm. >> >> People misusing guns can cause harm. >> >> However, when someone uses a gun to cause harm, it's not the gun causing >> the harm, but the person using it. > > What are you even responding to here? Just blabbering talking points > against straw men. Whatever. Not interested. You asked me for ideas....now you don't want to hear them? >> So the PROPER question would be: > > I asked the proper question. You avoided it. You have NO answer. As I > said, I think that is OK... it is not an easy problem to solve. I have no answer to the question as asked because I don't blame an inanimate object for the evil that someone does. You clearly do. Then you wonder why your 'solutions' are opposed, and when applied aren't effective. > >> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm caused by violent people? > > That question has unsupported assumptions... And exactly what assumptions do you wish to claim are unsupported? That you might have a suggestion? That violent people cause harm? That we need to reduce that harm? Go ahead tell me what assumption is unsupported so I can resolve that issue. >ignoring the fact that merely having a gun in the home, for example, has a >stronger tie to homicide than does domestic abuse or drug abuse (both of >which have pretty strong ties). Actually illegal drug use is the highest correlation to homicide going. But if you want to talk about correlations are you aware that the LARGEST correlation ever discovered is having a dead bolt lock on your door? Yep, if you hang a dead bolt lock then occurring to statistics you're something like 29 times more likely to be murdered. Who thought that locks were so dangerous. Maybe we should ban them? Meanwhile, I note you ask me for information and I respond often citing references and such to support what I say. So far you have yet to produce ANYTHING to counter the cited facts I've presented and you simply assert that I'm wrong, and you're right and that's all that needs to be said. Well, if you're going to advance your claims and show the world just how much you actually know and how all the rest of us are wrong about the language, meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment, then you're going to have to start producing some serious cited references that prove your claims are totally and utterly true and that there is no other possible interpretation. Until then, you're sounding more and more like a Rudy sock puppet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fneql9FtdvgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170283 |
On 6/1/18 10:44 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:fnejfiFs6f7U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 6/1/18 8:27 PM, Scout wrote:
>> ...
>>>> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns?
>>>
>>> I don't see where guns cause harm.
>>
>> So you will not answer the question.
>
> No, I am answering the question. Sorry, if the answer isn't what you
> wanted.
You asked another, loaded, question and answered that.
Not the same as answering the question. Nor will you. But I shall give
you another chance anyway:
What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns?
> >You have NO ideas. Fair enough...
>> it is not an easy question.
>
> And yet, you do have ideas and they appear below.
>
> So clearly your mouth is flapping in the wind even as your brain has no
> idea.
>
>
>> But here are some things that will NOT work:
>>
>> * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law.
>
> Which is what you are attempting to do.
Nope. I use the term as it is used:
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.
-----
Below you go off topic into crime and ONLY crime, how harsh we treat
criminals, blaming inanimate objects (WHAT?) and anything else you can
to move goal posts. Not biting.
--
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 | Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <cQZQC.222591$go7.213019@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #170252 |
On 6/1/2018 10:07 PM, Snit wrote: > ... >>> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? > > But here are some things that will NOT work: > * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law. > * Letting the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings, > largely control our gun laws. > * Working to STOP research to better understand the problem > and possible solutions. > Those are idiotic things... but we, as a country, do them. No we don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fnj8k8Fp1jcU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170834 |
Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 6/1/2018 10:07 PM, Snit wrote: >> ... >>>> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? >> >> But here are some things that will NOT work: >> * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law. >> * Letting the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings, >> largely control our gun laws. >> * Working to STOP research to better understand the problem >> and possible solutions. >> Those are idiotic things... but we, as a country, do them. > > No we don't. > > Ah, denial. So powerful!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ih2RC.382298$nq5.16281@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #170838 |
On 6/3/2018 4:32 PM, Snit wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 6/1/2018 10:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns?
>>>
>>> But here are some things that will NOT work:
>>> * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law.
>>> * Letting the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings,
>>> largely control our gun laws.
>>> * Working to STOP research to better understand the problem
>>> and possible solutions.
>>> Those are idiotic things... but we, as a country, do them.
>>
>> No we don't.
>
> Ah, denial. So powerful!
You should have no trouble supporting your claims.
1. You claim that we, as a country, redefine the term
"bear arms" to try to twist the law.
2. You claim that we, as a country, let the NRA largely
control our gun laws.
3. You claim the NRA is a group that benefits from mass
shootings.
4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research
to better understand the problem.
5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research
to better understand possible solutions.
Until you present evidence that supports those claims,
rational people are free to call bullshit on those claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnjq5aFrr38U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170884 |
On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/3/2018 4:32 PM, Snit wrote: >> Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 6/1/2018 10:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? >>>> >>>> But here are some things that will NOT work: >>>> * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law. >>>> * Letting the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings, >>>> largely control our gun laws. >>>> * Working to STOP research to better understand the problem >>>> and possible solutions. >>>> Those are idiotic things... but we, as a country, do them. >>> >>> No we don't. >> >> Ah, denial. So powerful! > > You should have no trouble supporting your claims. > 1. You claim that we, as a country, redefine the term > "bear arms" to try to twist the law. I make no such claim. I do note the SCOTUS has done so and that many Americans have. > 2. You claim that we, as a country, let the NRA largely > control our gun laws. While there is push back on it, sure we do. They pay off our representatives and refuse to stop taking the money. > 3. You claim the NRA is a group that benefits from mass > shootings. Sure: they get massive donations after most if not all. > 4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research > to better understand the problem. Nope... the NRA and others who back them do. > 5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research > to better understand possible solutions. Again, not everyone. But I showed the research dollars that go into it compared to others. > Until you present evidence that supports those claims, > rational people are free to call bullshit on those claims. I have provided evidence of each of those (well, what I said, not your sometimes twisted versions -- though you are close enough I am happy to attribute this to error and not malice). If you need me to do so AGAIN I can, I suppose, but why the repetition? Maybe you have not been following the thread? I also commend you for showing more than most that you are listening. If you really do need me to go through each of those again I shall. -- 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 | Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <DX2RC.84565$Qa1.37081@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #170886 |
On 6/3/2018 9:31 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 6/3/2018 4:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Just Wondering wrote: >>>> On 6/1/2018 10:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>>> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? >>>>> >>>>> But here are some things that will NOT work: >>>>> * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law. >>>>> * Letting the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings, >>>>> largely control our gun laws. >>>>> * Working to STOP research to better understand the problem >>>>> and possible solutions. >>>>> Those are idiotic things... but we, as a country, do them. >>>> >>>> No we don't. >>> >>> Ah, denial. So powerful! >> >> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >> 1. You claim that we, as a country, redefine the term >> "bear arms" to try to twist the law. > > I make no such claim. I do note the SCOTUS has done so and that many > Americans have. Your words: "Redefining the term 'bear arms' to try to twist the law. ... we, as a country, do them [it]." > >> 2. You claim that we, as a country, let the NRA largely >> control our gun laws. > > While there is push back on it, sure we do. They pay off our > representatives and refuse to stop taking the money. More empty rhetoric is not evidence. If it's true, you should have no trouble providing evidence of it. But you won't, because you can't. >> 3. You claim the NRA is a group that benefits from mass >> shootings. > > Sure: they get massive donations after most if not all. More empty rhetoric is not evidence. If it's true, you should have no trouble providing evidence of it. But you won't, because you can't. > >> 4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >> to better understand the problem. > > Nope... the NRA and others who back them do. Your words: "Working to STOP research to better understand the problem and possible solutions. ... but we, as a country, do them [it]." > >> 5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >> to better understand possible solutions. > > Again, not everyone. But I showed the research dollars that > go into it compared to others. You have never provided evidence that we, as a country, work to stop research into ANYTHING. >> Until you present evidence that supports those claims, >> rational people are free to call bullshit on those claims. > > I have provided evidence of each of those (well, what I said, > not your sometimes twisted versions -- though you are close > enough I am happy to attribute this to error and not malice). > If you need me to do so AGAIN I can, I suppose, but why the > repetition? Maybe you have not been following the thread? > > I also commend you for showing more than most that you > are listening. If you really do need me to go through > each of those again I shall. What you do is assert "A" is true, provide of "B", then falsely assert you have provided evidence of "A". It matters not whether "B" is true, if the claim that "A" is true remains unsupported.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnjsktFs7fgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170891 |
On 6/3/18 9:09 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/3/2018 9:31 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 6/3/2018 4:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> On 6/1/2018 10:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? >>>>>> >>>>>> But here are some things that will NOT work: >>>>>> * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law. >>>>>> * Letting the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings, >>>>>> largely control our gun laws. >>>>>> * Working to STOP research to better understand the problem >>>>>> and possible solutions. >>>>>> Those are idiotic things... but we, as a country, do them. >>>>> >>>>> No we don't. >>>> >>>> Ah, denial. So powerful! >>> >>> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >>> 1. You claim that we, as a country, redefine the term >>> "bear arms" to try to twist the law. >> >> I make no such claim. I do note the SCOTUS has done so and that many >> Americans have. > > Your words: "Redefining the term 'bear arms' to try to twist > the law. ... we, as a country, do them [it]." > >> >>> 2. You claim that we, as a country, let the NRA largely >>> control our gun laws. >> >> While there is push back on it, sure we do. They pay off our >> representatives and refuse to stop taking the money. > > More empty rhetoric is not evidence. If it's true, you > should have no trouble providing evidence of it. But you > won't, because you can't. > > >>> 3. You claim the NRA is a group that benefits from mass >>> shootings. >> >> Sure: they get massive donations after most if not all. > > More empty rhetoric is not evidence. If it's true, you > should have no trouble providing evidence of it. But you > won't, because you can't. > >> >>> 4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >>> to better understand the problem. >> >> Nope... the NRA and others who back them do. > > Your words: "Working to STOP research to better understand > the problem and possible solutions. ... but we, as a country, > do them [it]." > >> >>> 5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research >>> to better understand possible solutions. >> >> Again, not everyone. But I showed the research dollars that go into it >> compared to others. > > You have never provided evidence that we, as a country, work > to stop research into ANYTHING. > > >>> Until you present evidence that supports those claims, >>> rational people are free to call bullshit on those claims. >> >> I have provided evidence of each of those (well, what I said, not your >> sometimes twisted versions -- though you are close enough I am happy >> to attribute this to error and not malice). If you need me to do so >> AGAIN I can, I suppose, but why the repetition? Maybe you have not >> been following the thread? >> >> I also commend you for showing more than most that you are listening. >> If you really do need me to go through >> each of those again I shall. > > What you do is assert "A" is true, provide of "B", then > falsely assert you have provided evidence of "A". It matters > not whether "B" is true, if the claim that "A" is true remains > unsupported. I will spend the time tomorrow to cover each for you. I warn you that the post will be VERY long... but it will be rather complete. -- 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 | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf2cr5$1i3e$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #170884 |
On 6/3/2018 11:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/3/2018 4:32 PM, Snit wrote: >> Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 6/1/2018 10:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>> What is your suggestion to reduce the harm tied to guns? >>>> >>>> But here are some things that will NOT work: >>>> * Redefining the term "bear arms" to try to twist the law. >>>> * Letting the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings, >>>> largely control our gun laws. >>>> * Working to STOP research to better understand the problem >>>> and possible solutions. >>>> Those are idiotic things... but we, as a country, do them. >>> >>> No we don't. >> >> Ah, denial. So powerful! > > You should have no trouble supporting your claims. > 1. You claim that we, as a country, redefine the term > "bear arms" to try to twist the law. > 2. You claim that we, as a country, let the NRA largely > control our gun laws. > 3. You claim the NRA is a group that benefits from mass > shootings. > 4. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research > to better understand the problem. > 5. You claim that we, as a country, work to stop research > to better understand possible solutions. > Until you present evidence that supports those claims, > rational people are free to call bullshit on those claims. There is no rational. There is no evidence. There is Trump, and only Trump. Do not question His Stable and Smart Genius. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnk24fFt58hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170884 |
On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: ... > You should have no trouble supporting your claims. I will take on each comment in a different post. There is a LOT to cover here. Thank you for asking. Also, you are correct when I said we, as a country, do these things. Does not mean we ALL do them, but overall that is the impact... you backed your claim well there and I thank you for that. OK, to the claims. Will take some time to get to them all. > 1. You claim that we, as a country, redefine the term > "bear arms" to try to twist the law. This one will take a lot because there is a lot of content. Let us start with the meaning of "bear arms". How was the term used at the time of the founding? How is it used now? Well, we have good evidence of that: <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> OR <https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> ----- A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military. But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- Someone else called me out on this saying it focused on the "natural language" and not the legal language (though he then contradicted himself and said the database was likely biased toward government / legal language!). But, from the same link: ----- By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to carry a weapon and has nothing to do with armies. He explained in his opinion: “Although [‘bear arms’] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.” ----- So Scalia tied this to the "natural language" and CLAIMED that it was commonly used outside of the context described above. He, however, gives precisely ZERO examples of this. And, also from the link, this leads to a clear conclusion: ----- The Supreme Court’s reasoning may be flawed, but its decision — at least for now — is binding: The Second Amendment protects everyone’s right to tote a gun. But no court can dictate the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Even after Heller, we still can’t bear arms against a rabbit, or a mugger, or a tin can on a tree stump in the yard. That is just not how we talk. ----- But this is only one area of inquiry. What about others? Try this search: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> I did my search there some time ago, but here were the top (relevant) hits: 1) https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2792&context=lawreview | First, the second amendment was passed as an | assurance to the states that they would have the | right to maintain their own militias. Such | militias were to be used as the centerpiece of the | nation's military power, as an alternative to a | large standing army, as a tool for the states to | ensure public order, and as a means for the states | to defend against the encroachment of federal | power. | | Second, the second amendment does not operate as a | restraint on the states. It acts as a restraint on the | federal government. | | Third, there is no substantial historical evidence for | the claim that the second amendment guarantees an | individual right to have arms for any purpose other | than participation in a state-regulated militia. | | Fourth, as long as federal gun laws do not adversely | affect the organized state militias, these laws should | encounter no second amendment problems. | | Fifth, because the state militias no longer rely on | the use of privately-owned firearms by their active | members, federal regulation of private gun ownership | poses no threat to state militias, and therefore | raises no constitutional issue. This is demonstrated | by the remarkable unanimity of federal and state | courts in upholding the constitutional validity of | firearms laws against second amendment challenges. 2) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105369 | This article argues that the second amendment was | initially proposed and passed in response to some | antifederalist fears of a standing army. The | thrust of the Amendment was to prevent the | national government from disarming the state | militias. Similarly, the Amendment allowed the | states to arm their own militias if Congress | failed to do so under its Article I, Section 8 | powers. The article notes that Madison and other | Federalists who wrote the Second Amendment were | fully aware of demands for an amendment to protect | an individual's right to own weapons, and that the | framers of the Second Amendment emphatically | rejected this concept. 3) https://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Research/Reviews/rwstand.htm | The contemporary meaning of the Second Amendment | is the same as it was at the time of its adoption. | The federal government may regulate the National | Guard, but may not disarm it against the will of | state legislatures. Nothing in the Second | Amendment, however, precludes Congress or the | states from requiring licensing and registration | of firearms; in fact, there is nothing to stop an | outright congressional ban on private ownership of | all handguns and all rifles. 4) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114 | Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason | to believe that, in significant part, James | Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his | constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, | that Congress could not use its newly-acquired | powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by | disarming the militia, on which the South relied | for slave control. There were others with similar takes. There were NONE I found that said otherwise, but to be fair, as I have shared this with others they have pointed me to these TWO. That is all... and they are very much hand-picked to support the bias of the people sharing them with me: http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp So there is SOME dissent, but it is quite clear the general scholarly view matches what the language suggests. We also have evidence from laws that dealt with guns. We know that, for example, there were laws in Boston which made it illegal to have a loaded weapon in your own home, and that what we now call "open carry" was illegal in many areas. As far as I can find it was not until Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822) - nearly half a century after the founding of the country - that any court case was pushed with the idea that the second amendment was about individual rights and opposed to those that are mentioned above. In that case it was deemed it was legal to carry a concealed *sword*. And then there were other early gun laws. Here is an article on them: <http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr> OR <https://goo.gl/2bTm6p> And a key except (though it is well worth reading it in full): ----- | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already | in place during the Founding Era. Militia | regulations were the most common form of laws | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder | were also common. States prohibited the use of | firearms on certain occasions and in certain | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the | population during the Founding Era. ... | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes | providing for the confiscation of firearms from | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms | within the context of militia obligations, and | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is | hardly a modern invention. ----- These laws existed at and after the founding and, as far as I can tell, NONE were challenged on second amendment grounds. Also from that link: ----- Contrary to the claim of some modern gun rights advocates, robust regulation of firearms is not only compatible with the Second Amendment, it is an essential part of the founders' vision of how guns fit within the framework of well regulated liberty. Nothing in the subsequent history, including the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, changed the underlying centrality of the concept of well regulated liberty to American law. Modern Second Amendment scholarship and recent jurisprudence have devoted considerable energy to debating the individual or collective nature of this right. Hardly any attention has been devoted to elaborating a functional Second Amendment jurisprudence. All of the existing theories of the Second Amendment, including those that treat it as an individual right, a collective right, or a civic right, leave open the issue of how courts ought to weigh and evaluate firearms regulation." In this sense, recent Second Amendment jurisprudence has been much less pragmatic than earlier efforts by the courts to sort out the meaning of bearing arms. The struggles of antebellum state judges to make sense of the scope of the right to bear arms and the common law right of self-defense might provide some useful guidelines for modern jurists. ----- As far as twisting this meaning, I can point you to specific pages on the NRA site if you wish, but I trust you know they hold a different view (what that last link refers to as the "modern view". And in the Heller case the SCOTUS, in a 5:4 decision, accepted something closer to this "modern view" than the original meaning. It is that change of meaning I refer to when I speak of it being "redefined". -- 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 | Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <eEgRC.187802$T14.100926@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #170895 |
On 6/3/2018 11:47 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > ... >> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. > > I will take on each comment in a different post. There is a LOT to cover > here. Thank you for asking. > > Also, you are correct when I said we, as a country, do > these things. Does not mean we ALL do them, but overall > that is the impact... you backed your claim well there > and I thank you for that. OK, to the claims. ... > >> 1. You claim that we, as a country, redefine the term >> "bear arms" to try to twist the law. > > This one will take a lot because there is a lot of content. ... Which I did read, but clip here for brevity. > By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” > is simply to carry a weapon ... The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, were written in language the ordinary person is supposed to be able to understand. By that standard, "Scalia's logic" is correct. "Bear arms" means "carry a weapon." Your content discusses whether the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right, or to protect state militias from federal interference. None of that content - NONE - addresses whether "bear arms" has any meaning other than "carry a weapon". You have committed a logical fallacy by asserting A (we as a country redefine "bear arms" to twist the law),then offering evidence of B (whether the Second Amendment protects state powers or individual rights), then asserting evidence of B is evidence of A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnlkmgF8csoU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171102 |
On 6/4/18 12:44 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/3/2018 11:47 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> ... >>> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >> >> I will take on each comment in a different post. There is a LOT to >> cover here. Thank you for asking. >> >> Also, you are correct when I said we, as a country, do these things. >> Does not mean we ALL do them, but overall that is the impact... you >> backed your claim well there and I thank you for that. OK, to the >> claims. ... >> >>> 1. You claim that we, as a country, redefine the term >>> "bear arms" to try to twist the law. >> >> This one will take a lot because there is a lot of content. ... > > Which I did read, but clip here for brevity. Fair enough. >> By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to >> carry a weapon ... > > The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, were written > in language the ordinary person is supposed to be able > to understand. Sure. > By that standard, "Scalia's logic" is > correct. "Bear arms" means "carry a weapon." As shown, that is NOT the way the phrase "bear arms" is used, nor was it at the time. That is the point: the language does not fit the meaning the NRA (and you) are pushing. > Your content discusses whether the Second Amendment was > intended to protect an individual right, or to protect > state militias from federal interference. None of that > content - NONE - addresses whether "bear arms" has any > meaning other than "carry a weapon". The meaning is tied to that phrase (as well as the specific context of the militia being specified!) > You have committed > a logical fallacy by asserting A (we as a country redefine > "bear arms" to twist the law),then offering evidence of B > (whether the Second Amendment protects state powers or > individual rights), then asserting evidence of B is > evidence of A. I am noting and I backed that "bear arms" means something contrary to what the NRA has pushed and the SCOTUS backed. -- 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnll6qF8gsuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171102 |
On 6/4/18 12:44 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/3/2018 11:47 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> ... >>> You should have no trouble supporting your claims. >> >> I will take on each comment in a different post. There is a LOT to >> cover here. Thank you for asking. >> >> Also, you are correct when I said we, as a country, do these things. >> Does not mean we ALL do them, but overall that is the impact... you >> backed your claim well there and I thank you for that. OK, to the >> claims. ... >> >>> 1. You claim that we, as a country, redefine the term >>> "bear arms" to try to twist the law. >> >> This one will take a lot because there is a lot of content. ... > > Which I did read, but clip here for brevity. > >> By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to >> carry a weapon ... > > The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, were written > in language the ordinary person is supposed to be able > to understand. By that standard, "Scalia's logic" is > correct. "Bear arms" means "carry a weapon." > > Your content discusses whether the Second Amendment was > intended to protect an individual right, or to protect > state militias from federal interference. None of that > content - NONE - addresses whether "bear arms" has any > meaning other than "carry a weapon". You have committed > a logical fallacy by asserting A (we as a country redefine > "bear arms" to twist the law),then offering evidence of B > (whether the Second Amendment protects state powers or > individual rights), then asserting evidence of B is > evidence of A. To put my last post another way: * We know that "bear arms" was used in specific contexts. * The NRA, and now activist judges who back them, have altered the meaning by pushing the phrase into other contexts. I get that what the SCOTUS says is, right or wrong, law. They have that power. I am not debating that is what the current law is, but I am asking why should we reject the meaning of the phrase as used by people at the time of the founding (and used now) and go with a new definition? Why not stick to the original? -- 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnk5v6Ftr7eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170884 |
On 6/3/18 8:23 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > You should have no trouble supporting your claims. ... > 2. You claim that we, as a country, let the NRA largely > control our gun laws. This one is pretty easy. Here: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/14/how-the-nra-has-shaped-the-worlds-gun-laws> OR <https://goo.gl/R6EyV2> ----- The NRA ran an aggressive international lobbying effort to try to get all references to firearms dropped. The World Forum on Shooting Activities, an international coalition of gun manufacturers and gun-rights activists founded by the NRA in 1997, also spoke against the treaty. When that did not work, the group began lobbying congressional leaders, urging them not to ratify the measure. Ultimately, the treaty was signed by the Obama administration but never ratified by Congress. Other U.N. efforts have met similar fates. As Scott Stedjan of Oxfam International put it, there are now more global agreements regulating the trade of bananas than of AK-47s. ... The NRA's obsession with fighting gun control might be ideological. Or it might have something to do with protecting the global market of gun buyers. After all, the group represents many of the world's top weapons manufacturers. Protecting the right to bear arms also protects their right to sell to anyone, anywhere. ----- A lot more at that link. Well worth reading in full. Then there is this: <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394> ----- US gun control: What is the NRA and why is it so powerful? The NRA spends about $250m per year, far more than all the country's gun control advocacy groups put together. But the NRA has a much larger membership than any of those groups and disburses funds for things such as gun ranges and educational programmes. In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy - the recorded spend on lobbying in 2014 was $3.3m. That is only the recorded contributions to lawmakers however, and considerable sums are spent elsewhere via PACs and independent expenditures - funds which are difficult to track. Analysts point out that the NRA also wields considerable indirect influence via its highly politically engaged membership, many of whom will vote one way or another based on this single issue. The NRA publicly grades members of Congress from A to F on their perceived friendliness to gun rights. Those ratings can have a serious effect on poll numbers and even cost pro-gun control candidates a seat. ... Why is it controversial? The NRA has lobbied heavily against all forms of gun control and argued aggressively that more guns make the country safer. It relies on, and staunchly defends, a disputed interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which it argues gives US citizens the rights to bear arms. ----- Again, well worth the whole read. And there is this: <http://www.newsweek.com/nra-gun-control-parkland-florida-school-shooting-campaign-donations-813940> OR <https://goo.gl/ejWGkg> ----- HERE'S WHY THE NRA IS SO POWERFUL AND WHY GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES HAVE REASON FOR HOPE The National Rifle Association spends more money to influence politics than nearly every nonprofit group in the United States—but that’s only one-half of its arsenal, gun violence experts told Newsweek in separate interviews. The NRA’s extravagance has earned it a reputation as one of the most powerful political organizations in the county. When it comes to muzzling politicians on gun control and stymying regulations in Congress, the public often credits the group with near-omnipotence. It’s an easy argument to make when lawmakers offer “thoughts and prayers” in the wake of gun violence but shy away from legislative action. They also tend to have a pecuniary interest in protecting the NRA’s aims. Years of paralysis around the gun debate on Capitol Hill, as well as lawmakers bucking multiple national polls indicating that a clear majority of Americans support some form of gun control, show it isn’t just about the money, according to Robert Maguire, who tracks spending among political nonprofit organizations for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group that monitors spending on elections and public policy. ... Not only does the NRA outspend gun control groups but it’s also simply better at mobilizing its base (it boasts a membership of 5 million) against candidates it deems a threat, according to the Violence Policy Center's executive director, Josh Sugarmann. “I think across the board, if you compare the NRA core to any progressive issue, the NRA core supporters are completely willing to follow orders,” he said. “When they are told to make a call, knock on a door, they do it.... The word comes down from above, and they do it.” ... Today, the lobbying arm is one of the most powerful in D.C. It spent $35,157,585 in 2016, more than any other political nonprofit in the country that year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. As a whole, the NRA spent $51,854,687 during the 2016 federal election cycle. The NRA significantly boosted its spending that year, dropping more money to get President Donald Trump elected than it did in all federal elections in the 2012 cycle combined, the group reported. Trump was the beneficiary of over $30 million in NRA spending—$11,438,118 for him and $19,756,081 against Hillary Clinton—in the 2016 election. The NRA’s return-on-investment is formidable. The group had a 73.3 percent success rate by candidate in 2016—meaning nearly three-quarters of the time the NRA spent money for or against a candidate, it got its desired outcome. It’s also getting more efficient—its success rate when spending money on candidates has trended up since 2008 when it was only 43.6 percent. Gun advocacy groups have also dramatically ramped up their spending over the past five years. ----- Money and an army of people who will do as they are told and not question it. Leads to a LOT of power. Hard to argue that the NRA does not wield a LOT of political power in this country. Given that its status of a non-profit should be rescinded, but that is a topic for another day. -- 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 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web