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 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 09:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf6ej4$2ll$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171458 |
In news:fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > 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. We'll add misogyny to your traits. >> 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. Wow! How did you go so wrong so fast? "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." "I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and read books to a well schooled electorate..... "He said, 'No.'" > 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. Your reading comprehension sucks. > A better analogy to the second amendment might be: > A well informed group of scholars, being necessary to the > education of a free State,... False assumption. > ... the right of the people to keep and support libraries shall not be infringed. Another false assumption. One cannot "bear" a library (unless it's a personal collection of books capable of being transported by one person). "Support" is in no way analogous to "bear." You're equating the right to keep and bear arms to the right to keep and support an armory, and implying the armory is owned by the community. > It does not imply that anyone and everyone should be able to have a > library in their home,... Actually, it does. One cannot "keep" a library if one does not possess it. > ... nor even that everyone should have access to a library card. A library card isn't necessary to access one's library. > 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. It's a piss-poor analogy. > Thanks for posting that! Always happy to advance another's education.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnntd8Flhn3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171479 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> 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. > > We'll add misogyny to your traits. > >>> 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. > > Wow! How did you go so wrong so fast? > > "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free > State, the right of the > people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." > > "I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep > and read books to a well > schooled electorate..... > > "He said, 'No.'" > >> 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. > > Your reading comprehension sucks. > >> A better analogy to the second amendment might be: > >> A well informed group of scholars, being necessary to the >> education of a free State,... > > False assumption. > >> ... the right of the people to keep and support libraries shall not be infringed. > > Another false assumption. One cannot "bear" a library (unless it's a > personal collection of books > capable of being transported by one person). "Support" is in no way analogous to "bear." > > You're equating the right to keep and bear arms to the right to keep and > support an armory, and > implying the armory is owned by the community. > >> It does not imply that anyone and everyone should be able to have a >> library in their home,... > > Actually, it does. One cannot "keep" a library if one does not possess it. > >> ... nor even that everyone should have access to a library card. > > A library card isn't necessary to access one's library. > >> 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. > > It's a piss-poor analogy. > >> Thanks for posting that! > > Always happy to advance another's education. > > > I note your misogyny and you try to twist it to be mine. Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment, not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a controversial 5:4 decision.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 13:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf6raf$mc$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171480 |
In news:fnntd8Flhn3U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> 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. >> We'll add misogyny to your traits. >>>> 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. >> Wow! How did you go so wrong so fast? >> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the >> people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." >> "I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to >> keep and read books to a well schooled electorate..... >> "He said, 'No.'" >>> 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. >> Your reading comprehension sucks. >>> A better analogy to the second amendment might be: >>> A well informed group of scholars, being necessary to the >>> education of a free State,... >> False assumption. >>> ... the right of the people to keep and support libraries shall not >>> be infringed. >> Another false assumption. One cannot "bear" a library (unless it's a personal collection of books >> capable of being transported by one person). "Support" is in no way analogous to "bear." >> You're equating the right to keep and bear arms to the right to keep and >> support an armory, and implying the armory is owned by the community. >>> It does not imply that anyone and everyone should be able to have a >>> library in their home,... >> Actually, it does. One cannot "keep" a library if one does not >> possess it. >>> ... nor even that everyone should have access to a library card. >> A library card isn't necessary to access one's library. >>> 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. >> It's a piss-poor analogy. >>> Thanks for posting that! >> Always happy to advance another's education. > I note your misogyny... Hey, I LOVE women! > ... and you try to twist it to be mine. You're the one who took it as an insult. It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. > Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the phrase. Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your view. > I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with most of the subscribers to t.p.g. > ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a controversial 5:4 decision. Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good thing the Supreme Court straightened them out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 14:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171557 |
On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: ... >> I note your misogyny... > > Hey, I LOVE women! Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. >> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. > > You're the one who took it as an insult. Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, with the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who referred to people in the feminine AS an insult. Own your own actions. > It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of > ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're both thinking with your ovaries and > not your brains. Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. >> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. > > Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with one narrow meaning of the phrase > "bear arms" "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I am going with the actual meaning. How dare I! > and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the phrase. I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the time of the founding. > Now you are > twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your view. You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, pushed by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also used at the time of the founding. So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to it. Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? >> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... > > I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with most of the subscribers to t.p.g. > >> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a controversial 5:4 decision. > > Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good thing the Supreme Court straightened > them out. I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to show "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:02 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <cj5ehd1kh6hdke1uitajobmojqg8fm9gss@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171585 |
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:50:09 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: >... >>> I note your misogyny... >> >> Hey, I LOVE women! > >Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. > >>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. >> >> You're the one who took it as an insult. > >Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, with >the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who referred to >people in the feminine AS an insult. > >Own your own actions. > >> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're both thinking with your ovaries and >> not your brains. > >Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. > >>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. >> >> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with one narrow meaning of the phrase >> "bear arms" > >"Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I am >going with the actual meaning. How dare I! > >> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the phrase. > >I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the >time of the founding. > >> Now you are >> twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your view. > >You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, pushed by >activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also used at the >time of the founding. > >So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to it. >Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? > >>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... >> >> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with most of the subscribers to t.p.g. >> >>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a controversial 5:4 decision. >> >> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good thing the Supreme Court straightened >> them out. > >I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to show >"bear arms" being used as you claim it was. You sound like Nads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf76s3$75a$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171585 |
In news:fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: > ... >>> I note your misogyny... >> Hey, I LOVE women! > Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. >>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. >> You're the one who took it as an insult. > Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, with > the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who referred to > people in the feminine AS an insult. The words which you conveniently snipped away... which prove you the liar. > Own your own actions. >> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're >> both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. > Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're going to argue like a woman, I'll note it. >>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. >> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with >> one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" > "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I am > going with the actual meaning. How dare I! Not "the" actual meaning, but "one" actual meaning. On that foundation of sand you built your house. >> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the phrase. > I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the > time of the founding. Done and done. >> Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your view. > You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, pushed > by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also used at the > time of the founding. It's not a new meaning. It was, is, and will be the true meaning. > So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to it. > Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? Done and done. However, it's irrelevant. The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms," and that you can't deny. >>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... >> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with most >> of the subscribers to t.p.g. >>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a >>> controversial 5:4 decision. >> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good thing >> the Supreme Court straightened them out. > I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to show > "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:56 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <6n8ehd90uspprcmi14jv3mrd3jpfc8mspf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171672 |
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:33:50 -0700, "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >In news:fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net, >Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: > >> ... >>>> I note your misogyny... > >>> Hey, I LOVE women! > >> Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. > >>>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. > >>> You're the one who took it as an insult. > >> Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, with >> the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who referred to >> people in the feminine AS an insult. > >The words which you conveniently snipped away... which prove you the liar. > >> Own your own actions. > >>> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >>> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're >>> both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. > >> Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. > >I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're going to argue like a woman, I'll note it. > >>>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. > >>> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with >>> one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" > >> "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I am >> going with the actual meaning. How dare I! > >Not "the" actual meaning, but "one" actual meaning. On that foundation of sand you built your house. > >>> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the phrase. > >> I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the >> time of the founding. > >Done and done. > >>> Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your view. > >> You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, pushed >> by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also used at the >> time of the founding. > >It's not a new meaning. It was, is, and will be the true meaning. > >> So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to it. >> Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? > >Done and done. However, it's irrelevant. > >The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms," and that you can't deny. > >>>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... > >>> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with most >>> of the subscribers to t.p.g. > >>>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a >>>> controversial 5:4 decision. > >>> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good thing >>> the Supreme Court straightened them out. > >> I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to show >> "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. > >Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. > Thais Snit reminds me of Fakey/Nads/Kensi in how it spins, evades and projects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnon2jFqc8mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171672 |
On 6/5/18 4:33 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: > >> ... >>>> I note your misogyny... > >>> Hey, I LOVE women! > >> Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. > >>>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. > >>> You're the one who took it as an insult. > >> Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, with >> the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who referred to >> people in the feminine AS an insult. > > The words which you conveniently snipped away... which prove you the liar. > >> Own your own actions. > >>> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >>> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're >>> both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. > >> Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. > > I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're going to argue like a woman, I'll note it. > >>>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. > >>> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with >>> one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" > >> "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I am >> going with the actual meaning. How dare I! > > Not "the" actual meaning, but "one" actual meaning. On that foundation of sand you built your house. > >>> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the phrase. > >> I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the >> time of the founding. > > Done and done. > >>> Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your view. > >> You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, pushed >> by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also used at the >> time of the founding. > > It's not a new meaning. It was, is, and will be the true meaning. > >> So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to it. >> Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? > > Done and done. However, it's irrelevant. > > The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms," and that you can't deny. > >>>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... > >>> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with most >>> of the subscribers to t.p.g. > >>>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a >>>> controversial 5:4 decision. > >>> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good thing >>> the Supreme Court straightened them out. > >> I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to show >> "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. > > Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. > > More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part to show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way contrary to what I have shown. Bottom line: you have certainty with no support, I have support with no certainty. I am open to contrary information where you are close minded. Fair enough. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7ahm$rj1$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171705 |
In news:fnon2jFqc8mU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/5/18 4:33 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> ... >>>>> I note your misogyny... >>>> Hey, I LOVE women! >>> Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. >>>>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. >>>> You're the one who took it as an insult. >>> Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, >>> with the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who >>> referred to people in the feminine AS an insult. >> The words which you conveniently snipped away... which prove you the >> liar. >>> Own your own actions. >>>> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >>>> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're >>>> both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. >>> Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. >> I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're going to argue like a woman, I'll >> note it. >>>>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. >>>> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with >>>> one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" >>> "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I >>> am going with the actual meaning. How dare I! >> Not "the" actual meaning, but "one" actual meaning. On that >> foundation of sand you built your house. >>>> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the >>>> phrase. >>> I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the >>> time of the founding. >> Done and done. >>>> Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your >>>> view. >>> You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, >>> pushed by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also >>> used at the time of the founding. >> It's not a new meaning. It was, is, and will be the true meaning. >>> So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to >>> it. Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? >> Done and done. However, it's irrelevant. >> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms," and that you can't deny. >>>>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... >>>> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with >>>> most of the subscribers to t.p.g. >>>>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a >>>>> controversial 5:4 decision. >>>> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good >>>> thing the Supreme Court straightened them out. >>> I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to >>> show "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. >> Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. > More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported > claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part to > show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way contrary to > what I have shown. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnoq9rFbpqgU29@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171717 |
On 6/5/18 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. >> More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported >> claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part to >> show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way contrary to >> what I have shown. > Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. > > The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms." Ah, then show where and how THAT phrase was used in other texts. Oh. You were just changing topics because you have no honest response. OK. I will just go back to the topic: * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action". * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. * I back evidence-based policies. -- 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 | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 22:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7sku$935$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171727 |
In news:fnoq9rFbpqgU29@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/5/18 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. >>> More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported >>> claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part >>> to show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way >>> contrary to what I have shown. >> Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. >> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms." > Ah, then show where and how THAT phrase was used in other texts. Oh, my. Are you going to claim that *that* also has a military meaning?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnqbhmF560lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171793 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:fnoq9rFbpqgU29@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/5/18 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote: > >>>>> Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. > >>>> More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported >>>> claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part >>>> to show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way >>>> contrary to what I have shown. > >>> Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. > >>> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms." > >> Ah, then show where and how THAT phrase was used in other texts. > > Oh, my. Are you going to claim that *that* also has a military meaning? > > > I am asking you to show how the phrase you focused on was used. Give examples.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <bb41j4.365.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #171717 |
On 2018-06-05 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fnon2jFqc8mU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/5/18 4:33 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: > >>>> ... >>>>>> I note your misogyny... > >>>>> Hey, I LOVE women! > >>>> Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. > >>>>>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. > >>>>> You're the one who took it as an insult. > >>>> Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, >>>> with the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who >>>> referred to people in the feminine AS an insult. > >>> The words which you conveniently snipped away... which prove you the >>> liar. > >>>> Own your own actions. > >>>>> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >>>>> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're >>>>> both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. > >>>> Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. > >>> I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're going to argue like a woman, I'll >>> note it. > >>>>>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. > >>>>> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with >>>>> one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" > >>>> "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I >>>> am going with the actual meaning. How dare I! > >>> Not "the" actual meaning, but "one" actual meaning. On that >>> foundation of sand you built your house. > >>>>> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the >>>>> phrase. > >>>> I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the >>>> time of the founding. > >>> Done and done. > >>>>> Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your >>>>> view. > >>>> You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, >>>> pushed by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also >>>> used at the time of the founding. > >>> It's not a new meaning. It was, is, and will be the true meaning. > >>>> So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to >>>> it. Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? > >>> Done and done. However, it's irrelevant. > >>> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms," and that you can't deny. > >>>>>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... > >>>>> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with >>>>> most of the subscribers to t.p.g. > >>>>>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a >>>>>> controversial 5:4 decision. > >>>>> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good >>>>> thing the Supreme Court straightened them out. > >>>> I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to >>>> show "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. > >>> Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. > >> More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported >> claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part to >> show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way contrary to >> what I have shown. > > Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. > > The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms." > > its not arms its alms
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnoqkoFbpqgU34@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171730 |
On 6/5/18 6:06 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-05 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fnon2jFqc8mU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/5/18 4:33 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: >> >>>>> ... >>>>>>> I note your misogyny... >> >>>>>> Hey, I LOVE women! >> >>>>> Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. >> >>>>>>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. >> >>>>>> You're the one who took it as an insult. >> >>>>> Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, >>>>> with the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who >>>>> referred to people in the feminine AS an insult. >> >>>> The words which you conveniently snipped away... which prove you the >>>> liar. >> >>>>> Own your own actions. >> >>>>>> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >>>>>> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're >>>>>> both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. >> >>>>> Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. >> >>>> I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're going to argue like a woman, I'll >>>> note it. >> >>>>>>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. >> >>>>>> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with >>>>>> one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" >> >>>>> "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I >>>>> am going with the actual meaning. How dare I! >> >>>> Not "the" actual meaning, but "one" actual meaning. On that >>>> foundation of sand you built your house. >> >>>>>> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the >>>>>> phrase. >> >>>>> I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the >>>>> time of the founding. >> >>>> Done and done. >> >>>>>> Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your >>>>>> view. >> >>>>> You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, >>>>> pushed by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also >>>>> used at the time of the founding. >> >>>> It's not a new meaning. It was, is, and will be the true meaning. >> >>>>> So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to >>>>> it. Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? >> >>>> Done and done. However, it's irrelevant. >> >>>> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms," and that you can't deny. >> >>>>>>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... >> >>>>>> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with >>>>>> most of the subscribers to t.p.g. >> >>>>>>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a >>>>>>> controversial 5:4 decision. >> >>>>>> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good >>>>>> thing the Supreme Court straightened them out. >> >>>>> I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to >>>>> show "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. >> >>>> Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. >> >>> More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported >>> claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part to >>> show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way contrary to >>> what I have shown. >> >> Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. >> >> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms." >> >> > its not arms its alms :) -- 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 18:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <bb441l.6rs.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #171738 |
On 2018-06-05 6:10 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/5/18 6:06 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-06-05 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fnon2jFqc8mU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> On 6/5/18 4:33 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fnoeshFbpqgU10@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:18 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> I note your misogyny... >>> >>>>>>> Hey, I LOVE women! >>> >>>>>> Irrelevant to your misogynistic insult. >>> >>>>>>>> ... and you try to twist it to be mine. >>> >>>>>>> You're the one who took it as an insult. >>> >>>>>> Again, you can work to twist words (you do that a lot... with this, >>>>>> with the second amendment, and more) but YOU are the one who >>>>>> referred to people in the feminine AS an insult. >>> >>>>> The words which you conveniently snipped away... which prove you the >>>>> liar. >>> >>>>>> Own your own actions. >>> >>>>>>> It's responses such as that and your and Jones' habits of >>>>>>> ignoring contradicting evidence that leads me to conclude you're >>>>>>> both thinking with your ovaries and not your brains. >>> >>>>>> Ah, more misogynistic nonsense from you AND empty accusations. >>> >>>>> I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're going to argue like a woman, I'll >>>>> note it. >>> >>>>>>>> Then you go right on twisting words and meanings. >>> >>>>>>> Actually, that would be you, from start to finish. You began with >>>>>>> one narrow meaning of the phrase "bear arms" >>> >>>>>> "Narrowing" it to how the term is (or at least was) used. Yeah... I >>>>>> am going with the actual meaning. How dare I! >>> >>>>> Not "the" actual meaning, but "one" actual meaning. On that >>>>> foundation of sand you built your house. >>> >>>>>>> and tried to argue that it was the ONLY relevant meaning of the >>>>>>> phrase. >>> >>>>>> I am open to you showing examples where it was used otherwise at the >>>>>> time of the founding. >>> >>>>> Done and done. >>> >>>>>>> Now you are twisting the words of grammarians to conform to your >>>>>>> view. >>> >>>>>> You want to push that the new meaning of the second amendment, >>>>>> pushed by activist judges in a controversial 5:4 decision, was also >>>>>> used at the time of the founding. >>> >>>>> It's not a new meaning. It was, is, and will be the true meaning. >>> >>>>>> So show where the term "bear arms" was used that way. I am open to >>>>>> it. Do you have ANY examples? Any at all? >>> >>>>> Done and done. However, it's irrelevant. >>> >>>>> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms," and that you can't deny. >>> >>>>>>>> I will stick to the original meaning of the second amendment,... >>> >>>>>>> I'm glad you've seen the light. That puts you in agreement with >>>>>>> most of the subscribers to t.p.g. >>> >>>>>>>> ... not the new one pushed by activist judges in 2008 in a >>>>>>>> controversial 5:4 decision. >>> >>>>>>> Nah, the "states' right" judges started well before then. Good >>>>>>> thing the Supreme Court straightened them out. >>> >>>>>> I am open to you showing support. Of note, you repeatedly fail to >>>>>> show "bear arms" being used as you claim it was. >>> >>>>> Been there, done that, and you refused to acknowledge the examples. >>> >>>> More misogynistic nonsense from you, empty accusations, unsupported >>>> claims that YOUR view must be right, and more failure on your part to >>>> show where the founders used the term "bear arms" in a way contrary to >>>> what I have shown. >>> >>> Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. >>> >>> The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms." >>> >>> >> its not arms its alms > > :) > not even a dodging reply
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 07:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <ojfehdplvqojhf7iocnrqa4q4644g9lm91@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171747 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 18:48:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >not even a dodging reply While I agree that the term: "to bear arms" has an exclusively military connotation, methinks we would be doing better to take the full 27-word sentence and look at that. Thus, we have: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "A well regulated Militia..." is a noun phrase; "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a present progressive adjective phrase amplifying the preceding noun phrase. Taken together, we have a 13-word noun phrase; there is no verb, so it doesn't qualify as a clause. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is obviously a 10-word noun phrase. And, last but not least, we find that required part of all properly constructed sentences, i.e., the verb phrase: "...shall not be infringed." The subject is 23 words. You can't truncate 13 of them without altering the semantic of the sentence. There is absolutely nothing about the first 13 word phrase that would signal the reader that it might be "prefatory"; similarly, the following 10 words simply form a noun phrase; nothing tells the reader that this is could be the "operant" phrase. The way one arrives at such nonsense is with a pre-existing belief in the NRA marketing material because there is no support found in the syntax of the sentence. ******* When reading the Federalist essays, it is difficult to discern Alexander Hamilton's writing from James Madison's; their styles are very similar. One hallmark of Madison's writing, however, was that he tended to capitalize the important words of a sentence, albeit somewhat inconsistently. In the second amendment, the reader finds: "Militia", "State", and "Arms" so capitalized, none of which are proper nouns. This might lend some insight into the author's intentions. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnqbhpF560lU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171808 |
!Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 18:48:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns % > <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >> not even a dodging reply > > While I agree that the term: "to bear arms" has an exclusively > military connotation, methinks we would be doing better to take the > full 27-word sentence and look at that. > > Thus, we have: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the > security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear > Arms, shall not be infringed." > > "A well regulated Militia..." is a noun phrase; "being necessary to > the security of a free State" is a present progressive adjective > phrase amplifying the preceding noun phrase. Taken together, we have > a 13-word noun phrase; there is no verb, so it doesn't qualify as a > clause. > > "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is obviously a 10-word > noun phrase. > > And, last but not least, we find that required part of all properly > constructed sentences, i.e., the verb phrase: "...shall not be > infringed." > > The subject is 23 words. You can't truncate 13 of them without > altering the semantic of the sentence. There is absolutely nothing > about the first 13 word phrase that would signal the reader that it > might be "prefatory"; similarly, the following 10 words simply form a > noun phrase; nothing tells the reader that this is could be the > "operant" phrase. The way one arrives at such nonsense is with a > pre-existing belief in the NRA marketing material because there is no > support found in the syntax of the sentence. > > ******* > > When reading the Federalist essays, it is difficult to discern > Alexander Hamilton's writing from James Madison's; their styles are > very similar. One hallmark of Madison's writing, however, was that he > tended to capitalize the important words of a sentence, albeit > somewhat inconsistently. In the second amendment, the reader finds: > "Militia", "State", and "Arms" so capitalized, none of which are > proper nouns. This might lend some insight into the author's > intentions. > > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > Which version of the second amendment? There are half a dozen or so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <4ugghd5mnafm9q5hp9s2jjudh01u4aju0p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171825 |
x-no-idiots: yes On 6 Jun 2018 15:05:29 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Which version of the second amendment? There are half a dozen or so. Yes, I am aware of that, however, only one of them was ratified. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 16:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnr93uFbpqgU57@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171933 |
On 6/6/18 1:27 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On 6 Jun 2018 15:05:29 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> Which version of the second amendment? There are half a dozen or so. > > Yes, I am aware of that, however, only one of them was ratified. Different states had different versions -- and 2/3 approved of the version THEY got, but not necessarily the official one. If one is pedantic, no one version ever WAS ratified. Technically one can say we do not even have a second amendment. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 08:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnqef9FbpqgU47@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171808 |
On 6/6/18 5:48 AM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 18:48:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns % > <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >> not even a dodging reply > > While I agree that the term: "to bear arms" has an exclusively > military connotation, methinks we would be doing better to take the > full 27-word sentence and look at that. Keep in mind your admission here. OK. > Thus, we have: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the > security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear > Arms, shall not be infringed." Remember what YOU said of "bear arms". > "A well regulated Militia..." is a noun phrase; "being necessary to > the security of a free State" is a present progressive adjective > phrase amplifying the preceding noun phrase. Taken together, we have > a 13-word noun phrase; there is no verb, so it doesn't qualify as a > clause. Depends on how you define "clause". Sigh. > "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is obviously a 10-word > noun phrase. One need not go into grammar lessons to understand the meaning -- esp. given how there are about half a dozen versions with slightly different punctuation and capitalization, and because the author almost certainly did not dissect their sentences to this extent. > And, last but not least, we find that required part of all properly > constructed sentences, i.e., the verb phrase: "...shall not be > infringed." So no stopping convicts... or stopping me from having nukes and dirty bombs, ricin and dynamite... or shall we agree ALL rights have limits (something even the SCOTUS agreed to in their 2008 decision when they went with the new definition of the second amendment). > The subject is 23 words. You can't truncate 13 of them without > altering the semantic of the sentence. There is absolutely nothing > about the first 13 word phrase that would signal the reader that it > might be "prefatory"; similarly, the following 10 words simply form a > noun phrase; nothing tells the reader that this is could be the > "operant" phrase. The way one arrives at such nonsense is with a > pre-existing belief in the NRA marketing material because there is no > support found in the syntax of the sentence. You say there is nothing that would "signal" the reader, but most scholars DO see it that way. Here is a sample (the first four relevant articles I found when doing this search: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> 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. > > ******* > > When reading the Federalist essays, it is difficult to discern > Alexander Hamilton's writing from James Madison's; their styles are > very similar. One hallmark of Madison's writing, however, was that he > tended to capitalize the important words of a sentence, albeit > somewhat inconsistently. In the second amendment, the reader finds: > "Militia", "State", and "Arms" so capitalized, none of which are > proper nouns. This might lend some insight into the author's > intentions. > > Jones Sadly I bet not all who signed it even agreed. The wording of the second amendment, even excluding the multiple versions, is a mess. But we all agree there should be limits... infringements if you will. The question is where to have those limits, not if. -- 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 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web