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 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <rbgghdh976h8i51bmbrkvk97ku4dvgpfkr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171832 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Depends on how you define "clause". Sigh. Well, how do *you* define a clause? I could copy and paste from dozens of sources; however, the term is quite well defined. A clause could stand alone as a sentence from a syntactic perspective in that it has a subject and a verb... lacking that, it is a phrase. Many sentences have multiple clauses; this sentence is an example of such. Q: What is the difference between a sentence and a cat? A: A sentence has pause at the end of its clause and a cat has claws at the end of its paws. (Look out Stephen Colbert!) Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 16:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnr9arFbpqgU58@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171936 |
On 6/6/18 1:32 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> Depends on how you define "clause". Sigh. > > Well, how do *you* define a clause? A jolly man who brings presents to good boys and girls. And now others, too. He is a liberal! OK: Depends on context... but by some definitions it does not need both a subject and predicate. > I could copy and paste from > dozens of sources; however, the term is quite well defined. 1. a unit of grammatical organization next below the sentence in rank and in traditional grammar said to consist of a subject and predicate. 2. a particular and separate article, stipulation, or proviso in a treaty, bill, or contract. > A clause > could stand alone as a sentence from a syntactic perspective in that > it has a subject and a verb... lacking that, it is a phrase. Many > sentences have multiple clauses; this sentence is an example of such. > > Q: What is the difference between a sentence and a cat? > > A: A sentence has pause at the end of its clause and a cat has claws > at the end of its paws. (Look out Stephen Colbert!) :) That is almost as bad as my first comment... and I did not read down on yours before I wrote that. :) > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > -- 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 | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 15:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <f8hghd5rofh4puf2ac22r139l5doa40fog@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171832 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >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. James Madison? He was probably the most literate of the founders. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf9pap$k4s$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171937 |
"!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message news:f8hghd5rofh4puf2ac22r139l5doa40fog@4ax.com... > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>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. > > James Madison? He was probably the most literate of the founders. And yet you tell us that he didn't know what "the people" meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 17:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnre2sFbpqgU60@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171968 |
On 6/6/18 4:03 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message > news:f8hghd5rofh4puf2ac22r139l5doa40fog@4ax.com... >> x-no-idiots: yes >> >> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> James Madison? He was probably the most literate of the founders. > > And yet you tell us that he didn't know what "the people" meant. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied that. But YOU are saying you disagree with his intentions, as least according to LiveScience. <https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html> ----- James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. ----- -- 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 17:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnrdrsFbh1hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171937 |
On 6/6/18 1:34 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:55:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > James Madison? He was probably the most literate of the founders. Interesting. <https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html> ----- James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. ----- -- 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 | 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnoqd8Fqsh7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171705 |
On 6/5/18 5:09 PM, Snit wrote: > 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. > > Max had nothing to add other than insults. Not interested. So, 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 | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 20:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <dveehd53mv92v00f5ju5dhdjag1uvb4in8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171585 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:50:09 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> 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. Have you ever wondered what that "contradicting evidence" is, exactly? Would you care to wager that it doesn't come from: www.nraila.org ? Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf72sb$hr7$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171458 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net... > 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. Excuse me, but if I can't keep a library in my home, then wouldn't that be a direct violation of the terms of your sentence. Since it doesn't limit where the library is, the size of the library or even who owns the library. Oh, and I do have my own personal library in my home and such a sentence would protect my right to do so. indeed, I don't know of any scholar who doesn't have their own personal library. Further I would note that according to your claims only the state could have a library, and only when a scholar is called into the service of the state could they access that library, and that they could only do so in such a time and manner as the state directs. So how many scholars would you have in such a society where the knowledge is controlled by the state and released only to those the state deems worth and then only during such a time as they are deemed worthy? Nope, if we apply YOUR arguments to this sentence we start to see exactly how insane your arguments are with regard to the 2nd Amendment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnokucFbpqgU19@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171618 |
On 6/5/18 3:15 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net... >> 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. > > Excuse me, but if I can't keep a library in my home, then wouldn't that > be a direct violation of the terms of your sentence. Since it doesn't > limit where the library is, the size of the library or even who owns the > library. Oh, we can play word games with it all day. > Oh, and I do have my own personal library in my home and such a sentence > would protect my right to do so. From here we would have to debate the meaning of the term "library". The sentence is poorly worded... as is the second amendment. People would be able to debate it for hundreds of years and have different views... but the real problem would be the poor wording. So what should we do? Either look to see how the words were used at the time and in that context or, perhaps, go with what works best for us now. And I would think that no matter what an amendment said you should be able to keep books at your house whether we deem it a "library" or not! > indeed, I don't know of any scholar who doesn't have their own personal > library. > > Further I would note that according to your claims only the state could > have a library, Incorrect. The federal government could, too. > and only when a scholar is called into the service of > the state could they access that library, and that they could only do so > in such a time and manner as the state directs. I could see that interpretation. Others would work, too. > So how many scholars would you have in such a society where the > knowledge is controlled by the state and released only to those the > state deems worth and then only during such a time as they are deemed > worthy? Well, you could have drafts where you force people to be scholars. :) Sadly right now in our country we should have MUCH more of an emphasis on education. > Nope, if we apply YOUR arguments to this sentence we start to see > exactly how insane your arguments are with regard to the 2nd Amendment. How so? The sentence (both the second amendment and my above) are worded so poorly you can get different meanings from them. That is why I say we should look at things like what "bear arms" meant and how it was used at the time. That leads to one conclusion. You can also look at how "arms" was used... and in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere it was used not just for guns but for the biggest arms of the day -- the arms of a country. By THAT way of looking at it you can argue that we should be able to have nukes and even ricin and dirty bombs (the rights of even the government have been infringed there!) Really we have a poorly written sentence that was generally interpreted one way for most of the history of the country but then in 2008 the SCOTUS offered the first official support of the new definition. I am not saying the new definition cannot be read into those same words -- but why would we want to do that other than to push an agenda? I think we should go with what we do with other tools (at least ideally, and better than we do with guns), support evidence-based polices. -- 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 21:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7evv$g93$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171664 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnokucFbpqgU19@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:15 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnnn7sFbpqgU4@mid.individual.net... >>> 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. >> >> Excuse me, but if I can't keep a library in my home, then wouldn't that >> be a direct violation of the terms of your sentence. Since it doesn't >> limit where the library is, the size of the library or even who owns the >> library. > > Oh, we can play word games with it all day. Translation: Run away, run away, he just kicked my ass using a sentence structure the same as the 2nd and I don't have any idea of how to make my twisted interpretation work now that we’ve changed it to a neutral subject. >> Oh, and I do have my own personal library in my home and such a sentence >> would protect my right to do so. > > From here we would have to debate the meaning of the term "library". Definition of library plural libraries 1 a : a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials (such as books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept for use but not for sale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/library Debate is now over. > The sentence is poorly worded... as is the second amendment. It's poorly worded if you want to try to force it to mean something else, but for the idea is exists to convey it's quite clear. >People would be able to debate it for hundreds of years and have different >views... but the real problem would be the poor wording. True, but even if you debated it for hundreds of years the language, meaning and intent of the 2nd still wouldn't match the view you what to force upon it. > So what should we do? Either look to see how the words were used at the > time and in that context or, perhaps, go with what works best for us now. SCOTUS has already ruled on that and it is the meaning of the words at the time of the legislation and the intent of the authors that determine it's meaning. If you wish to change it to what you think would work for us now, then you need to do so via Article V. Good luck with that since I don't see your view ever being accepted to the extent necessary to ratify a change to the language of the 2nd. > And I would think that no matter what an amendment said you should be able > to keep books at your house whether we deem it a "library" or not! Just as I should be able to keep and bear my arms whether you like it or not. > >> indeed, I don't know of any scholar who doesn't have their own personal >> library. >> >> Further I would note that according to your claims only the state could >> have a library, > > Incorrect. The federal government could, too. > >> and only when a scholar is called into the service of the state could >> they access that library, and that they could only do so in such a time >> and manner as the state directs. > > I could see that interpretation. Others would work, too. I'm sure it is because you think a person can go from dumb and ignorant to a well educated scholar in a matter of moments once exposed to a library. That is assuming there is a library around at just the moment in time when it's needed. Which is sort of why people have their personal arms to keep and bear so that they can be more likely to have it around when needed. >> So how many scholars would you have in such a society where the knowledge >> is controlled by the state and released only to those the state deems >> worth and then only during such a time as they are deemed worthy? > > Well, you could have drafts where you force people to be scholars. :) You could, but under the 13th Amendment I would consider that as involuntary servitude. Just as I would with a military draft. > Sadly right now in our country we should have MUCH more of an emphasis on > education. Agreed, the Department of Education has all but destroyed education in this country. Look at you, a single complex sentence and you are totally unable to read it for comprehension even using current definitions. Clearly we need more emphasis on actually educating rather than indoctrination as is currently the case. Of course, that means your view would be rejected even more, but that's what happens when you know the facts. > >> Nope, if we apply YOUR arguments to this sentence we start to see exactly >> how insane your arguments are with regard to the 2nd Amendment. > > How so? The sentence (both the second amendment and my above) are worded > so poorly you can get different meanings from them. Your inability to read for comprehension isn't a failure of the sentence, but rather either your ignorance in how to read, or your refusal to accept what is said. > That is why I say we should look at things like what "bear arms" meant and > how it was used at the time. Which SCOTUS did and found that bearing arms wasn't something limited to a military function. See DC vs Heller for cites. > That leads to one conclusion. That you're ignorant, and should research the facts? >You can also look at how "arms" was used... and in the Federalist Papers >and elsewhere it was used not just for guns but for the biggest arms of the >day -- the arms of a country. By THAT way of looking at it you can argue >that we should be able to have nukes and even ricin and dirty bombs (the >rights of even the government have been infringed there!) Yes, it does. Now I agree that might need to be revised and I would support a properly worded Amendment to that effect, but let's stick to the subject of firearms and level the rest for a newsgroup that deals with WMD. > Really we have a poorly written sentence that was generally interpreted > one way for most of the history of the country but then in 2008 the SCOTUS > offered the first official support of the new definition. Actually the interpretation of SCOTUS has been consistent and the court has NEVER denied standing for any individual to claim the 2nd in their defense. As such the 2nd has always been demonstrably shown to have been viewed by the Court as protecting an individual right, just as any other right of the people is. >I am not saying the new definition cannot be read into those same words -- > but why would we want to do that other than to push an agenda? Yes, and you apparently want to push an agenda since you ignore the clear language and the historical references to support that language in favor of some twisted interpretation that would allow you to deny people their rights. > > I think we should go with what we do with other tools (at least ideally, > and better than we do with guns), support evidence-based polices. Good luck with that, because there is no real evidence that shows gun control does anything positive in preventing criminal access, lowering violent crime rates or any of the other excuses made to engage in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 19:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnou5oFrfodU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171751 |
On 6/5/18 6:41 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> Oh, we can play word games with it all day. > > Translation: When you do this you are admitting you are not responding to my ideas but your own twisting of them. > Run away, run away, he just kicked my ass using a sentence > structure the same as the 2nd and I don't have any idea of how to make > my twisted interpretation work now that we’ve changed it to a neutral > subject. Sorry you feel that way. I say if you think you made a mistake so what? Own it and move on. >>> Oh, and I do have my own personal library in my home and such a >>> sentence would protect my right to do so. >> >> From here we would have to debate the meaning of the term "library". > > Definition of library > plural libraries > > 1 a : a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference > materials (such as books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept > for use but not for sale > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/library > > Debate is now over. You have decided a side issue debate where you play word games with things not even in the second amendment is over. Good! I hope you keep your word on that! ... >> I could see that interpretation. Others would work, too. > > I'm sure it is because you think a person can go from dumb and ignorant > to a well educated scholar in a matter of moments once exposed to a > library. Interesting that what you are "sure" of is not at all correct. Now apply this to other thoughts of yours. You being "sure" is not a sign at all of something being accurate. Good thing to note. Thank you. ... > Clearly we need more emphasis on actually educating rather than > indoctrination as is currently the case. > > Of course, that means your view would be rejected even more, but that's > what happens when you know the facts. See: this is another unsupported assumption on your part. Remember: * I back evidence-based policies. That scares the NRA and their supporters. They work against education and research. ... >> You can also look at how "arms" was used... and in the Federalist >> Papers and elsewhere it was used not just for guns but for the biggest >> arms of the day -- the arms of a country. By THAT way of looking at it >> you can argue that we should be able to have nukes and even ricin and >> dirty bombs (the rights of even the government have been infringed >> there!) > > Yes, it does. Now I agree that might need to be revised and I would > support a properly worded Amendment to that effect, but let's stick to > the subject of firearms and level the rest for a newsgroup that deals > with WMD. Why move goal posts from the second amendment to firearms? >> Really we have a poorly written sentence that was generally >> interpreted one way for most of the history of the country but then in >> 2008 the SCOTUS offered the first official support of the new definition. > > Actually the interpretation of SCOTUS has been consistent and the court > has NEVER denied standing for any individual to claim the 2nd in their > defense. When did they back that meaning before 2008? > As such the 2nd has always been demonstrably shown to have been > viewed by the Court as protecting an individual right, just as any other > right of the people is. You are "sure" of this. But, as even you demonstrate above, that is of no value to suggesting accuracy. >> I am not saying the new definition cannot be read into those same >> words -- but why would we want to do that other than to push an agenda? > > Yes, and you apparently want to push an agenda since you ignore the > clear language and the historical references to support that language in > favor of some twisted interpretation that would allow you to deny people > their rights. My "agenda" is to go with whatever the evidence shows. Currently the evidence does not back your view. Maybe someday new evidence will, as unlikely as that seems. But, as I have noted, my push to use evidence and research is terrifying to the NRA and most of their backers. >> I think we should go with what we do with other tools (at least >> ideally, and better than we do with guns), support evidence-based >> polices. > > Good luck with that, because there is no real evidence that shows gun > control does anything positive in preventing criminal access, lowering > violent crime rates or any of the other excuses made to engage in it. Trivial to show research which contradicts your claim there (also has other info in it): https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ Your views, repeatedly, are trivial to show are contrary to the evidence. -- 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 18:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf72sa$hr7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171340 |
"!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message news:qf5chd9qu8ti4834aacu31oons14c5bn0a@4ax.com... > 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. Nothing inconvenient about it other than some idiots like you can't seem to figure out how to read the sentence.
[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 | <fnokd1Fpu21U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171617 |
On 6/5/18 3:09 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message > news:qf5chd9qu8ti4834aacu31oons14c5bn0a@4ax.com... >> 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. > > Nothing inconvenient about it other than some idiots like you can't seem > to figure out how to read the sentence. Do you understand the concept of supporting your view? Seems 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 | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7d7l$8lo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171657 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnokd1Fpu21U1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:09 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message >> news:qf5chd9qu8ti4834aacu31oons14c5bn0a@4ax.com... >>> 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. >> >> Nothing inconvenient about it other than some idiots like you can't seem >> to figure out how to read the sentence. > > Do you understand the concept of supporting your view? Seems not. I do, you seem to have real problem with it though. After all, I've given you cites, quotes, definitions, you have ONE, ONE, opinion piece which provides no cites and seems intent on delivering ONE view of ONE interpretation without making even an attempt at a balanced view or seeing if all the facts actually supports the claims being made. Which pretty much defines your approach as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnosveFbpqgU35@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171741 |
On 6/5/18 6:17 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnokd1Fpu21U1@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:09 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message >>> news:qf5chd9qu8ti4834aacu31oons14c5bn0a@4ax.com... >>>> 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. >>> >>> Nothing inconvenient about it other than some idiots like you can't >>> seem to figure out how to read the sentence. >> >> Do you understand the concept of supporting your view? Seems not. > > I do, you seem to have real problem with it though. Incorrect. I have happily backed my views. > After all, I've given you cites, quotes, definitions, you have ONE, ONE, > opinion piece which provides no cites and seems intent on delivering ONE > view of ONE interpretation without making even an attempt at a balanced > view or seeing if all the facts actually supports the claims being made. This is a complete misrepresentation of what I have offered and you suggest meaning about the term "bear arms" to the quotes you have offered even though they do not even mention the term "bear arms". > Which pretty much defines your approach as well. Keep in mind I am the one who provides massive amounts of RELEVANT information. Keep in mind you twist things to say all of the above, AND MORE, is merely "ONE, ONE, opinion piece". https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html ----- A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military. But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- 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. In the 1939 Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller it was found (unanimously) that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a "well regulated Militia." That was the understood meaning of the amendment for most of the history of the country. It was about a well regulated militia. In 2008 the meaning was heavily changed in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (in a 5 to 4 decision) where it was first determined to be a right of an individual. Even then it was very specifically tied to just the home: "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." Heller 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". --------- 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." ---------- -- 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 18:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf72sa$hr7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171312 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net... > 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. I did. Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, not the state, but the people. Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence can NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar action on the main clause because a nominative absolute clause has NO grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence which would be required for such to exist. So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the WHOLE sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of the people and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the free state, or anything else referenced by the nominative absolute clause.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnokc0FbpqgU17@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171616 |
On 6/5/18 3:08 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net... >> 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. > > I did. The sentence is more than "the right of the people". That is a fragment. > Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, > not the state, but the people. Again, read the WHOLE sentence. > Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence can > NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar action on the > main clause because a nominative absolute clause has NO grammatical > connection to the rest of the sentence which would be required for such > to exist. Interesting claim. Do you have ANY support? > So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the WHOLE > sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of the people > and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the free state, or > anything else referenced by the nominative absolute clause. Again, happy to see your support. Meanwhile the opposite is easy to show, just do this search and see what you find: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> Really... not sure why you want to rehash this time and time again when you have no sign of any ability to back what you claim. -- 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 21:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7bq1$1re$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171655 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:fnokc0FbpqgU17@mid.individual.net...
> On 6/5/18 3:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> 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.
>>
>> I did.
>
> The sentence is more than "the right of the people". That is a fragment.
No shit, Sherlock. But what is critical is you keep telling us the right is
that of some group OTHER than the people. The language doesn't support your
contention.
>
>> Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, not the
>> state, but the people.
>
> Again, read the WHOLE sentence.
I did, and the right is still stated to be that of the people....not the
militia, not the state, not the State militia, but the people.
>> Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence can
>> NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar action on the
>> main clause because a nominative absolute clause has NO grammatical
>> connection to the rest of the sentence which would be required for such
>> to exist.
>
> Interesting claim. Do you have ANY support?
Sure.
I'm happy to take you back to grade school, since apparently you didn't
learn anything there.
A nominative absolute is a noun phrase that begins or ends a sentence. The
phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. Most
nominative absolutes contain a participle or participial phrase which
modifies the noun or pronoun.
http://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
The Nominative Absolute Construction is a construction in which the
participle stands in predicative relation to a noun in the Common Case or a
pronoun in the Nominative Case; the noun or pronoun is not the subject of
the sentence.
http://englishstandarts.blogspot.com/2013/10/nominative-absolute-construction.html
So, no grammatical connection and the noun or pronoun of the nominative
absolute is not the subject of the sentence.
Therefore, neither the well regulated militia nor the free state is the
subject of the 2nd Amendment, and lacking a grammatical connection can not
impose any conditions, limitations, restrictions, or such upon the main
clause, since the nominative absolute is a free standing clause.
In this case what the nominative absolute does is to convey an opinion which
explains one reason for why the main clause is important.
For one can not have a well regulated militia with which to defend the free
state without a generally armed populous from which to form such a militia
in times of need. Therefore, to insure that such a militia can be formed in
times of need the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
>> So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the WHOLE
>> sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of the people
>> and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the free state, or
>> anything else referenced by the nominative absolute clause.
>
> Again, happy to see your support. Meanwhile the opposite is easy to show,
> just do this search and see what you find:
>
> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history>
>
> Really... not sure why you want to rehash this time and time again when
> you have no sign of any ability to back what you claim.
I'm regularly backing up what I say, you on the other hand seem to have a
single solitary to a flawed opinion piece which makes many assertions but
fails to provide any support for those assertions.
But luckily your opinion doesn't really matter because virtually everyone
else, including SCOTUS, can see the protected right of individuals to keep
and bear arms.
So, if you expect to make a change, you're going to need to do a lot better
than the mistaken opinion you keep citing. Heck, you might even take time to
read the DC vs Heller decision since SCOTUS took quite a lot of time to
explain exactly how the Court reached it's conclusions and includes a
multitude of supporting citations for the material presented. Indeed, your
entire argument has been addressed and refute by the Court.
Indeed let's pull a few phrases out from that decision for your
enlightenment and education....which you will probably ignore.
*************************************************************************************
"This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory
clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America
consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and
within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only
the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits
poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right
as “the people.”"
***********************************************************************************
"Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object:
“Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The
1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of
offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107
(4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal
dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or
takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A
New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American
Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter
Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically
designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For
instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not
bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del.
Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102,
104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455,
458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although
one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to
“instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction
Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis
added).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those
arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment
. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American
Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment
applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S.
27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all
instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in
existence at the time of the founding.
We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined
“keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in
custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s
power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of
“keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second
Amendment is to “have weapons.”
The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the
founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of
which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right
unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote
that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England
suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to
“keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769)
(hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at
Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist … shall or may have or keep in his House …
any Arms … ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771)
(similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that
required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service,
and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a
militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of
Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since
there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file
complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an
employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of
referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson
161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language
(1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).
When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to
carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United
States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote
that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second
Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the
clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for
offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”
Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th
ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural
meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the
weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way
connotes participation in a structured military organization."
*********************************************************************************
Seems they looked at your argument and found that it failed to stand up to
examination of the facts.
Further, they provided cites to sources, and those sources provide
additional cites to their sources, each building to reach an inescapable
conclusion.....that your argument is crap.
Oh, and lest we forget....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
After all, I wouldn't want you to claim I'm not citing a source.
But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
[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 | <fnoqkdFqsh7U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171724 |
On 6/5/18 6:01 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnokc0FbpqgU17@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:08 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net... >>>> 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. >>> >>> I did. >> >> The sentence is more than "the right of the people". That is a fragment. > > No shit, Sherlock. But what is critical is you keep telling us the right > is that of some group OTHER than the people. The language doesn't > support your contention. > > >> >>> Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, not >>> the state, but the people. >> >> Again, read the WHOLE sentence. > > I did, and the right is still stated to be that of the people....not the > militia, not the state, not the State militia, but the people. > > >>> Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence >>> can NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar action >>> on the main clause because a nominative absolute clause has NO >>> grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence which would be >>> required for such to exist. >> >> Interesting claim. Do you have ANY support? > > Sure. > > I'm happy to take you back to grade school, since apparently you didn't > learn anything there. > > > A nominative absolute is a noun phrase that begins or ends a sentence. > The phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. > Most nominative absolutes contain a participle or participial phrase > which modifies the noun or pronoun. > http://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm > > > The Nominative Absolute Construction is a construction in which the > participle stands in predicative relation to a noun in the Common Case > or a pronoun in the Nominative Case; the noun or pronoun is not the > subject of the sentence. > http://englishstandarts.blogspot.com/2013/10/nominative-absolute-construction.html > > > So, no grammatical connection and the noun or pronoun of the nominative > absolute is not the subject of the sentence. > > Therefore, neither the well regulated militia nor the free state is the > subject of the 2nd Amendment, and lacking a grammatical connection can > not impose any conditions, limitations, restrictions, or such upon the > main clause, since the nominative absolute is a free standing clause. > > In this case what the nominative absolute does is to convey an opinion > which explains one reason for why the main clause is important. > > For one can not have a well regulated militia with which to defend the > free state without a generally armed populous from which to form such a > militia in times of need. Therefore, to insure that such a militia can > be formed in times of need the right of the people to keep and bear arms > shall not be infringed. > > > > >>> So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the >>> WHOLE sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of >>> the people and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the free >>> state, or anything else referenced by the nominative absolute clause. >> >> Again, happy to see your support. Meanwhile the opposite is easy to >> show, just do this search and see what you find: >> >> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> >> >> Really... not sure why you want to rehash this time and time again >> when you have no sign of any ability to back what you claim. > > I'm regularly backing up what I say, you on the other hand seem to have > a single solitary to a flawed opinion piece which makes many assertions > but fails to provide any support for those assertions. > > But luckily your opinion doesn't really matter because virtually > everyone else, including SCOTUS, can see the protected right of > individuals to keep and bear arms. > > So, if you expect to make a change, you're going to need to do a lot > better than the mistaken opinion you keep citing. Heck, you might even > take time to read the DC vs Heller decision since SCOTUS took quite a > lot of time to explain exactly how the Court reached it's conclusions > and includes a multitude of supporting citations for the material > presented. Indeed, your entire argument has been addressed and refute by > the Court. > > Indeed let's pull a few phrases out from that decision for your > enlightenment and education....which you will probably ignore. > > ************************************************************************************* > > > "This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory > clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America > consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, > and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as > protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized > militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of > the holder of that right as “the people.”" > > *********************************************************************************** > > > "Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their > object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the > meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined > “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of > the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy > Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any > thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or > useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law > Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the > English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). > > The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not > specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a > military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as > an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows > on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the > trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws > of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see > generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of > state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus > limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence > generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms > constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed > Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added). > > Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only > those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second > Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as > the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno > v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the > Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. > United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment > extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, > even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. > > We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined > “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have > in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain > in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic > meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in > the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” > > The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of > the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, > all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual > right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, > wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of > England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not > permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of > England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, > §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist … shall or may > have or keep in his House … any Arms … ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the > Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia > laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms > in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the > phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for > Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). > This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that > authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal > agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related > connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to > possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7 > > At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See > Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English > Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) > (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a > meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. > In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of > analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal > statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning > is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, > or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the > purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in > a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting > opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think > that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear > arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is > for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way > connotes participation in a structured military organization." > > ********************************************************************************* > > > Seems they looked at your argument and found that it failed to stand up > to examination of the facts. > > Further, they provided cites to sources, and those sources provide > additional cites to their sources, each building to reach an inescapable > conclusion.....that your argument is crap. > > Oh, and lest we forget.... > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html > > After all, I wouldn't want you to claim I'm not citing a source. > > But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS > > https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf > > > > Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to in some depth? I doubt it. So 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]
Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web