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 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf53p2$s94$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170843 |
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message news:54v8hdh5crs136gsqkertpurb0cmc60o19@4ax.com... > On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 12:05:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >>On 6/3/18 11:54 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:39:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/3/18 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying to >>>>>>>>>> get to a >>>>>>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that phrase is >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do (what they >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you have >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> broader point? >>>>>>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the state's >>>>>>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>>>>>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >>>>> No, it's the old "It is because that's what it says." I don't care if >>>>> you're convinced. >>>> >>>> You are welcome to have an unsupported opinion. >>> >>> Just as you're welcome to have an opinion supported by bullshit. >>> >>> In the end, you will lose, just like you people always do. >>> >>Lose what? > > Really? > > LOL Doesn't Rudy always claim you've already lost and always will?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf520o$j7c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170758 |
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message news:v8e8hdt4ml7tutaandcdbhuu1q0rs1q1gr@4ax.com... > On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:39:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >>On 6/3/18 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying to get >>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that phrase is >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do (what they >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you have a >>>>>>>> broader point? >>>>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the state's >>>>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>>>> >>>>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>>>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>>>> >>>> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >>> No, it's the old "It is because that's what it says." I don't care if >>> you're convinced. >> >>You are welcome to have an unsupported opinion. > > Just as you're welcome to have an opinion supported by bullshit. > > In the end, you will lose, just like you people always do. IMO, he's already lost. By asserting that the right is NOT one of the people's rights, he has totally destroyed any claim to integrity or honesty that he might have had. Further, it's obvious that even a grade schooler diagramming the sentence can show that the right is that "of the people". Thus his scholarship is fake, his arguments unfounded, his bias is clear, and his dishonesty clearly evidence. Of course, that position is pushed upon him by his very narrative that the right belongs only to the militia. Thus he has to ignore the specific language and meaning that would contradict that requirement because without the right being limited to the militia the rest of his argument which is utterly dependent upon the right belonging only to the militia would also fall. Such as the claim of bearing arms only for a military purpose. Which might be fine for a right limited only to the militia, but utterly fails when it comes to a right held by the people. Similarly his claim to keeping arms being limit only the militia arms for a militia purpose would fail for the same reason. Indeed I presented several quotes from the founding fathers that showed the intent was not to limit purely to militia functions and only while actively involved in a militia operation. No, I personally think that Rudy has broken out a new sock puppet and given how well this 'puppet' claim to already know me, I think that makes it clear that it's merely Rudy trying once again to get attention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnmhb5Fd8cdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171300 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message > news:v8e8hdt4ml7tutaandcdbhuu1q0rs1q1gr@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:39:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/3/18 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying to get >>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that phrase is >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do (what they >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you have a >>>>>>>>> broader point? >>>>>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the state's >>>>>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>>>>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>>>>> >>>>> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >>>> No, it's the old "It is because that's what it says." I don't care if >>>> you're convinced. >>> >>> You are welcome to have an unsupported opinion. >> >> Just as you're welcome to have an opinion supported by bullshit. >> >> In the end, you will lose, just like you people always do. > > IMO, he's already lost. By asserting that the right is NOT one of the > people's rights, he has totally destroyed any claim to integrity or honesty > that he might have had. I am saying to go with the known meaning of the words. You twist this to say I lost. Lost what? A debate? Who is the judge? What is the prize for winning? Does not matter. What matters to me are reason and logic, evidence and support. Your game of winning or losing some unstated prize is of no importance to me. > Further, it's obvious that even a grade schooler diagramming the sentence > can show that the right is that "of the people". Thus his scholarship is > fake, his arguments unfounded, his bias is clear, and his dishonesty clearly > evidence. I have backed my claims. You have denial without evidence. > Of course, that position is pushed upon him by his very narrative that the > right belongs only to the militia. Thus he has to ignore the specific > language and meaning that would contradict that requirement because without > the right being limited to the militia the rest of his argument which is > utterly dependent upon the right belonging only to the militia would also > fall. Such as the claim of bearing arms only for a military purpose. Which > might be fine for a right limited only to the militia, but utterly fails > when it comes to a right held by the people. Similarly his claim to keeping > arms being limit only the militia arms for a militia purpose would fail for > the same reason. Remember: my position is to stick with the known meaning, and I showed support. You do what? Point to a controversial 5:4 SCOTUS decision where activist judges ignored the history of how the phrase “bear arms” has been used, how it is used now, the history of the laws, the majority of legal scholars, etc. > Indeed I presented several quotes from the founding fathers that showed the > intent was not to limit purely to militia functions and only while actively > involved in a militia operation. You showed zero quotes speaking of bearing arms. > No, I personally think that Rudy has broken out a new sock puppet and given > how well this 'puppet' claim to already know me, I think that makes it clear > that it's merely Rudy trying once again to get attention. > > > You insecurities are strongly on display.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf713v$70c$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171310 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnmhb5Fd8cdU1@mid.individual.net... > Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> >> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >> news:v8e8hdt4ml7tutaandcdbhuu1q0rs1q1gr@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:39:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/3/18 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying to >>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that phrase is >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do (what they >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you have >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> broader point? >>>>>>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the state's >>>>>>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>>>>>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >>>>> No, it's the old "It is because that's what it says." I don't care if >>>>> you're convinced. >>>> >>>> You are welcome to have an unsupported opinion. >>> >>> Just as you're welcome to have an opinion supported by bullshit. >>> >>> In the end, you will lose, just like you people always do. >> >> IMO, he's already lost. By asserting that the right is NOT one of the >> people's rights, he has totally destroyed any claim to integrity or >> honesty >> that he might have had. > > I am saying to go with the known meaning of the words. I am, you are the one claiming we should use only your 'special' definitions. "...right of the people..." People, not the State, not the militia, not the State's militia, but the people. A concept that everyone but you apparently understands and I can't find even one definition where "people" are defined as a militia or a state government.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 15:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnofoqFbpqgU12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171597 |
On 6/5/18 2:59 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnmhb5Fd8cdU1@mid.individual.net... >> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>> news:v8e8hdt4ml7tutaandcdbhuu1q0rs1q1gr@4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:39:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/3/18 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying >>>>>>>>>>> to get >>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that phrase is >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do (what >>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you >>>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>>> broader point? >>>>>>>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the state's >>>>>>>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >>>>>> No, it's the old "It is because that's what it says." I don't care if >>>>>> you're convinced. >>>>> >>>>> You are welcome to have an unsupported opinion. >>>> >>>> Just as you're welcome to have an opinion supported by bullshit. >>>> >>>> In the end, you will lose, just like you people always do. >>> >>> IMO, he's already lost. By asserting that the right is NOT one of the >>> people's rights, he has totally destroyed any claim to integrity or >>> honesty >>> that he might have had. >> >> I am saying to go with the known meaning of the words. > > I am, you are the one claiming we should use only your 'special' > definitions. > > "...right of the people..." > > People, not the State, not the militia, not the State's militia, but the > people. > > A concept that everyone but you apparently understands and I can't find > even one definition where "people" are defined as a militia or a state > government. 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. 5) Early gun laws http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already | in place during the Founding Era. Militia | regulations were the most common form of laws | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder | were also common. States prohibited the use of | firearms on certain occasions and in certain | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the | population during the Founding Era. ... | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes | providing for the confiscation of firearms from | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms | within the context of militia obligations, and | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is | hardly a modern invention. 6) The most often cited case by the NRA crowd is the Heller case, because in 2008, for the first time, the Supreme Court made a ruling speaking of guns and an individual right: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home." It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying one around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes". It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and that this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" and it "finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". --------- At the time of the founding it was illegal in Boston to have loaded fire arms in your house. As far as I can find there was no backlash from this about it being against the second amendment. In the "Old West", contrary to what movies tell you, it was often illegal to engage in what we now call "open carry". Again, I cannot find any sign of backlash from this. 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*. With all this said, I do not pretend to be an expert in this and am open to findings that I have not stumbled on. -------- So far two scholarly articles has shown that there is disagreement: http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp --------- While not a part of the law itself, the Articles of Confederation are a key document that lead to the US Constitution. Much of the language of the constitution originated there. This includes the phrase "well regulated" in terms of a militia. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp "... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." ---------- Remember, my view is simple: we should base policy on evidence and respect for rights. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 15:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <bb3n9h.ccc.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #171602 |
On 2018-06-05 3:05 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/5/18 2:59 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnmhb5Fd8cdU1@mid.individual.net... >>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>>> news:v8e8hdt4ml7tutaandcdbhuu1q0rs1q1gr@4ax.com... >>>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:39:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/3/18 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying >>>>>>>>>>>> to get >>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that >>>>>>>>>>>> phrase is >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do (what >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you >>>>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>>>> broader point? >>>>>>>>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the >>>>>>>>>>> state's >>>>>>>>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >>>>>>> No, it's the old "It is because that's what it says." I don't >>>>>>> care if >>>>>>> you're convinced. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are welcome to have an unsupported opinion. >>>>> >>>>> Just as you're welcome to have an opinion supported by bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> In the end, you will lose, just like you people always do. >>>> >>>> IMO, he's already lost. By asserting that the right is NOT one of the >>>> people's rights, he has totally destroyed any claim to integrity or >>>> honesty >>>> that he might have had. >>> >>> I am saying to go with the known meaning of the words. >> >> I am, you are the one claiming we should use only your 'special' >> definitions. >> >> "...right of the people..." >> >> People, not the State, not the militia, not the State's militia, but >> the people. >> >> A concept that everyone but you apparently understands and I can't >> find even one definition where "people" are defined as a militia or a >> state government. > > 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. > > 5) Early gun laws > > http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr > > | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already > | in place during the Founding Era. Militia > | regulations were the most common form of laws > | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite > | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep > | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to > | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. > | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder > | were also common. States prohibited the use of > | firearms on certain occasions and in certain > | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions > | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. > | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the > | population during the Founding Era. > ... > | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of > | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes > | providing for the confiscation of firearms from > | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to > | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms > | within the context of militia obligations, and > | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A > | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and > | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These > | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is > | hardly a modern invention. > > > 6) The most often cited case by the NRA crowd is the Heller case, > because in 2008, for the first time, the Supreme Court made a ruling > speaking of guns and an individual right: > https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html > > It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying > an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement > insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home." > > It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying one > around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of acceptance of > "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by > the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes". > > It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and > specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon > whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and that > this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the carrying of > firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, > or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of > arms" and it "finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting > the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". > > --------- > > > At the time of the founding it was illegal in Boston to have loaded fire > arms in your house. As far as I can find there was no backlash from this > about it being against the second amendment. > > In the "Old West", contrary to what movies tell you, it was often > illegal to engage in what we now call "open carry". Again, I cannot find > any sign of backlash from this. > > 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*. > > With all this said, I do not pretend to be an expert in this and am open > to findings that I have not stumbled on. > > -------- > > > So far two scholarly articles has shown that there is disagreement: > > http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html > > https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp > > > --------- > > While not a part of the law itself, the Articles of Confederation are a > key document that lead to the US Constitution. Much of the language of > the constitution originated there. This includes the phrase "well > regulated" in terms of a militia. > > http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp > "... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined > militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and > constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed > pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp > equipage." > > ---------- > > Remember, my view is simple: we should base policy on evidence and > respect for rights. > > no we shouldn't
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnokdgFbpqgU18@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171605 |
On 6/5/18 3:10 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-05 3:05 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/5/18 2:59 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnmhb5Fd8cdU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:v8e8hdt4ml7tutaandcdbhuu1q0rs1q1gr@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:39:52 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/3/18 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying >>>>>>>>>>>>> to get >>>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that >>>>>>>>>>>>> phrase is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do >>>>>>>>>>>>> (what they >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you >>>>>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>>>>> broader point? >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the >>>>>>>>>>>> state's >>>>>>>>>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >>>>>>>> No, it's the old "It is because that's what it says." I don't >>>>>>>> care if >>>>>>>> you're convinced. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are welcome to have an unsupported opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as you're welcome to have an opinion supported by bullshit. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the end, you will lose, just like you people always do. >>>>> >>>>> IMO, he's already lost. By asserting that the right is NOT one of the >>>>> people's rights, he has totally destroyed any claim to integrity >>>>> or honesty >>>>> that he might have had. >>>> >>>> I am saying to go with the known meaning of the words. >>> >>> I am, you are the one claiming we should use only your 'special' >>> definitions. >>> >>> "...right of the people..." >>> >>> People, not the State, not the militia, not the State's militia, but >>> the people. >>> >>> A concept that everyone but you apparently understands and I can't >>> find even one definition where "people" are defined as a militia or a >>> state government. >> >> 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. >> >> 5) Early gun laws >> >> http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr >> >> | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already >> | in place during the Founding Era. Militia >> | regulations were the most common form of laws >> | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite >> | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep >> | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to >> | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. >> | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder >> | were also common. States prohibited the use of >> | firearms on certain occasions and in certain >> | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions >> | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. >> | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the >> | population during the Founding Era. >> ... >> | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of >> | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes >> | providing for the confiscation of firearms from >> | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to >> | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms >> | within the context of militia obligations, and >> | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A >> | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and >> | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These >> | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is >> | hardly a modern invention. >> >> >> 6) The most often cited case by the NRA crowd is the Heller case, >> because in 2008, for the first time, the Supreme Court made a ruling >> speaking of guns and an individual right: >> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html >> >> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits >> carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock >> requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in >> the home." >> >> It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying >> one around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of >> acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to >> those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful >> purposes". >> >> It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and >> specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon >> whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and that >> this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the carrying of >> firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, >> or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale >> of arms" and it "finds support in the historical tradition of >> prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". >> >> --------- >> >> >> At the time of the founding it was illegal in Boston to have loaded >> fire arms in your house. As far as I can find there was no backlash >> from this about it being against the second amendment. >> >> In the "Old West", contrary to what movies tell you, it was often >> illegal to engage in what we now call "open carry". Again, I cannot >> find any sign of backlash from this. >> >> 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*. >> >> With all this said, I do not pretend to be an expert in this and am >> open to findings that I have not stumbled on. >> >> -------- >> >> >> So far two scholarly articles has shown that there is disagreement: >> >> http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html >> >> https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp >> >> >> --------- >> >> While not a part of the law itself, the Articles of Confederation are >> a key document that lead to the US Constitution. Much of the language >> of the constitution originated there. This includes the phrase "well >> regulated" in terms of a militia. >> >> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp >> "... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined >> militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and >> constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed >> pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp >> equipage." >> >> ---------- >> >> Remember, my view is simple: we should base policy on evidence and >> respect for rights. >> >> > no we shouldn't Why not? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <bb3rqg.bua.17.30@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #171658 |
On 2018-06-05 4:24 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/5/18 3:10 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-06-05 3:05 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/5/18 2:59 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fnmhb5Fd8cdU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:v8e8hdt4ml7tutaandcdbhuu1q0rs1q1gr@4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:39:52 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/3/18 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> phrase is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (what they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> broader point? >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the >>>>>>>>>>>>> state's >>>>>>>>>>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>>>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >>>>>>>>> No, it's the old "It is because that's what it says." I don't >>>>>>>>> care if >>>>>>>>> you're convinced. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are welcome to have an unsupported opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as you're welcome to have an opinion supported by bullshit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the end, you will lose, just like you people always do. >>>>>> >>>>>> IMO, he's already lost. By asserting that the right is NOT one of the >>>>>> people's rights, he has totally destroyed any claim to integrity >>>>>> or honesty >>>>>> that he might have had. >>>>> >>>>> I am saying to go with the known meaning of the words. >>>> >>>> I am, you are the one claiming we should use only your 'special' >>>> definitions. >>>> >>>> "...right of the people..." >>>> >>>> People, not the State, not the militia, not the State's militia, but >>>> the people. >>>> >>>> A concept that everyone but you apparently understands and I can't >>>> find even one definition where "people" are defined as a militia or >>>> a state government. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 5) Early gun laws >>> >>> http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr >>> >>> >>> | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already >>> | in place during the Founding Era. Militia >>> | regulations were the most common form of laws >>> | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite >>> | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep >>> | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to >>> | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. >>> | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder >>> | were also common. States prohibited the use of >>> | firearms on certain occasions and in certain >>> | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions >>> | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. >>> | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the >>> | population during the Founding Era. >>> ... >>> | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of >>> | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes >>> | providing for the confiscation of firearms from >>> | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to >>> | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms >>> | within the context of militia obligations, and >>> | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A >>> | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and >>> | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These >>> | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is >>> | hardly a modern invention. >>> >>> >>> 6) The most often cited case by the NRA crowd is the Heller case, >>> because in 2008, for the first time, the Supreme Court made a ruling >>> speaking of guns and an individual right: >>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html >>> >>> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits >>> carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock >>> requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in >>> the home." >>> >>> It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying >>> one around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of >>> acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies >>> to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful >>> purposes". >>> >>> It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and >>> specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon >>> whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and >>> that this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the carrying >>> of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government >>> buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the >>> commercial sale of arms" and it "finds support in the historical >>> tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". >>> >>> --------- >>> >>> >>> At the time of the founding it was illegal in Boston to have loaded >>> fire arms in your house. As far as I can find there was no backlash >>> from this about it being against the second amendment. >>> >>> In the "Old West", contrary to what movies tell you, it was often >>> illegal to engage in what we now call "open carry". Again, I cannot >>> find any sign of backlash from this. >>> >>> 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*. >>> >>> With all this said, I do not pretend to be an expert in this and am >>> open to findings that I have not stumbled on. >>> >>> -------- >>> >>> >>> So far two scholarly articles has shown that there is disagreement: >>> >>> http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html >>> >>> https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp >>> >>> >>> --------- >>> >>> While not a part of the law itself, the Articles of Confederation are >>> a key document that lead to the US Constitution. Much of the language >>> of the constitution originated there. This includes the phrase "well >>> regulated" in terms of a militia. >>> >>> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp >>> "... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and >>> disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall >>> provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due >>> number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, >>> ammunition and camp equipage." >>> >>> ---------- >>> >>> Remember, my view is simple: we should base policy on evidence and >>> respect for rights. >>> >>> >> no we shouldn't > > Why not? > its too personal different individuals have different rights
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf73v5$nuq$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171602 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnofoqFbpqgU12@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 2:59 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnmhb5Fd8cdU1@mid.individual.net... >>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>>> news:v8e8hdt4ml7tutaandcdbhuu1q0rs1q1gr@4ax.com... >>>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 11:39:52 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/3/18 11:13 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that phrase >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do (what >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you >>>>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>>>> broader point? >>>>>>>>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the >>>>>>>>>>> state's >>>>>>>>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>>>>>>>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >>>>>>> No, it's the old "It is because that's what it says." I don't care >>>>>>> if >>>>>>> you're convinced. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are welcome to have an unsupported opinion. >>>>> >>>>> Just as you're welcome to have an opinion supported by bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> In the end, you will lose, just like you people always do. >>>> >>>> IMO, he's already lost. By asserting that the right is NOT one of the >>>> people's rights, he has totally destroyed any claim to integrity or >>>> honesty >>>> that he might have had. >>> >>> I am saying to go with the known meaning of the words. >> >> I am, you are the one claiming we should use only your 'special' >> definitions. >> >> "...right of the people..." >> >> People, not the State, not the militia, not the State's militia, but the >> people. >> >> A concept that everyone but you apparently understands and I can't find >> even one definition where "people" are defined as a militia or a state >> government. > > 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. And to maintain their own militias required a generally armed populous upon which to draw to form such a militia when needed. The argument is shut down because it gets past the first sentence. Further I see nothing in the 2nd about the right of the states to have a militia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnomgiFbpqgU23@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171628 |
On 6/5/18 3:44 PM, Scout wrote: >> 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. > > And to maintain their own militias required a generally armed populous > upon which to draw to form such a militia when needed. > > The argument is shut down because it gets past the first sentence. > > Further I see nothing in the 2nd about the right of the states to have a > militia. Interesting theory. Any reason I should accept your view of it over the scholars, ESPECIALLY when you have been lying about my words? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7f00$g93$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171695 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnomgiFbpqgU23@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:44 PM, Scout wrote: >>> 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. >> >> And to maintain their own militias required a generally armed populous >> upon which to draw to form such a militia when needed. >> >> The argument is shut down because it gets past the first sentence. >> >> Further I see nothing in the 2nd about the right of the states to have a >> militia. > > Interesting theory. Any reason I should accept your view of it over the > scholars, ESPECIALLY when you have been lying about my words? Because the scholar you have been looking at have been lying to you? Oh, and I would like to see you cite where I lied about your words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 19:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnou8tFbpqgU38@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171752 |
On 6/5/18 6:42 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnomgiFbpqgU23@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:44 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> And to maintain their own militias required a generally armed >>> populous upon which to draw to form such a militia when needed. >>> >>> The argument is shut down because it gets past the first sentence. >>> >>> Further I see nothing in the 2nd about the right of the states to >>> have a militia. >> >> Interesting theory. Any reason I should accept your view of it over >> the scholars, ESPECIALLY when you have been lying about my words? > > Because the scholar you have been looking at have been lying to you? > > Oh, and I would like to see you cite where I lied about your words. See above where you insist scholars are lying. Do this search: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> See what you find. NO hand-picking... what are your first several relevant hits? -- 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 | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 17:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <49iRC.212678$o43.21421@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #170742 |
On 6/3/2018 2:02 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/3/18 4:01 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:03 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:29:48 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/2/18 1:27 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:57:54 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:38 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ] >>>>>>>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... " >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something >>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>> seven different versions of the second amendment with different >>>>>>>>> commas >>>>>>>>> and capitalization. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"???? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not think that phrase is in the constitution >>>>>> >>>>>> Correct. >>>>>> >>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying to get >>>>> to a >>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that phrase is not >>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do (what they have >>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you have a >>>>> broader point? >>>> >>>> No, you're not even close. >>>> >>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the state's >>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>> >>> >>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >> >> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >> > Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! > > Thanks! > Works for you Mr. NRA hate-speech.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 15:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnltraFa43hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171160 |
On 6/4/18 2:27 PM, benj wrote: > On 6/3/2018 2:02 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/3/18 4:01 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On 3 Jun 2018 00:47:03 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:29:48 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/2/18 1:27 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:57:54 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:38 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ] >>>>>>>>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... " >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something >>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>> seven different versions of the second amendment with >>>>>>>>>> different commas >>>>>>>>>> and capitalization. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"???? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do not think that phrase is in the constitution >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Are you just looking for specific phrases or are you trying to get >>>>>> to a >>>>>> point? I suspect you are trying to say that since that phrase is not >>>>>> there this means the concept of what the states can do (what they >>>>>> have >>>>>> rights to do) is not there. Is that correct? If not did you have a >>>>>> broader point? >>>>> >>>>> No, you're not even close. >>>>> >>>>> It's the people's right, not the militia's right, not the state's >>>>> right, not the feds' right. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is your unsupported opinion. Fair enough. >>> >>> That's what it says, if you're capable of reading. >>> >> Ah, the ol' it is as you say because you say so. Very convincing! >> >> Thanks! >> > Works for you Mr. NRA hate-speech. I do not even understand what you mean by that name calling, other than the obvious that you want to feel better about yourself by insulting others. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 23:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf520n$j7c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170457 |
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message news:rfl5hd5lpeptstffvnd3u9jhngdjc4tjd3@4ax.com... > On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >>On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ] >>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ... >>> >>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... " >>> >>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>> >>And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something like >>seven different versions of the second amendment with different commas >>and capitalization. > > Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"???? Or for that how many do not say "the right of the people"???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171299 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message > news:rfl5hd5lpeptstffvnd3u9jhngdjc4tjd3@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ] >>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ... >>>> >>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... " >>>> >>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>> >>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something like >>> seven different versions of the second amendment with different commas >>> and capitalization. >> >> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"???? > > Or for that how many do not say "the right of the people"??? > > > Look at the WHOLE sentence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 23:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <qf5chd9qu8ti4834aacu31oons14c5bn0a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171312 |
x-no-idiots: yes On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Look at the WHOLE sentence. Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. I always say that I support the 27-word version of 2A, not the 14-word one. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnmns5Fecg6U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171340 |
!Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> Look at the WHOLE sentence. > > Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence > with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned > inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. > > I always say that I support the 27-word version of 2A, not the 14-word > one. > > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > Love it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 07:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf67n4$h8h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171350 |
In news:fnmns5Fecg6U3@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >> On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> Look at the WHOLE sentence. >> Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence >> with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned >> inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. >> I always say that I support the 27-word version of 2A, not the >> 14-word one. > Love it. Then you girls should understand what you support. I've provided this link before and, as before, I expect Jones to ignore it. We'll see if Snit ignores it, too. http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 08:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171448 |
On 6/5/18 7:19 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:fnmns5Fecg6U3@mid.individual.net,
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
>
>> !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote:
>>> On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit
>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence.
>
>>> Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence
>>> with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned
>>> inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated.
>
>>> I always say that I support the 27-word version of 2A, not the
>>> 14-word one.
>
>> Love it.
>
> Then you girls should understand what you support.
The fact you use "girls" as an insult, which you clearly are, speaks
poorly of you.
> I've provided this link before and, as before, I expect Jones to ignore it. We'll see if Snit
> ignores it, too.
>
> http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html
Interesting analogy:
Books, it is claimed, are a requirement for a well-schooled electorate,
and thus those people referenced (the electorate... ALL citizens) should
have the right to books.
Arms, it is claimed, are a requirement for a well-regulated militia, and
this those people referenced (the militia... a subset of citizens)
should have the right to arms.
Interesting analogy which makes it VERY clear that the new
interpretation of the second amendment is not an accurate one. Thank you.
A better analogy to the second amendment might be:
A well informed group of scholars, being necessary to the
education of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and support libraries shall not be infringed.
It does not imply that anyone and everyone should be able to have a
library in their home, nor even that everyone should have access to a
library card.
To be clear: I would NEVER want to see such a law / amendment pass! But
that is a much better, though admittedly not perfect, analogy of the
type that page tries to push.
Thanks for posting that!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web