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 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 07:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <6JQQC.219873$go7.20295@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #170647 |
On 6/2/2018 11:42 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 8:33 PM, benj wrote: >> On 6/2/2018 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/2/18 7:13 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2018-06-02 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>> You ( Mike ) wrote: >>>>>> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >>>>>> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. >>>>> >>>>> Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your >>>>> "logic". >>>>> >>>>> No one can argue with you because you always begin with >>>>> assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, >>>>> and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. >>>>> >>>> i can argue with him and kick his ass to boot >>> >>> To me it is more about support and learning than winning or losing. >>> Maybe that is why I do not get so emotionally involved as others. >>> >> OR maybe because you are a bot. How do you feel about having no emotions? > > I have no feelings about it. > > :) > Excellent response. My compliments to your programmers! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 11:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <fnip43Fm0j7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170685 |
On 6/3/18 4:57 AM, benj wrote: > On 6/2/2018 11:42 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/2/18 8:33 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 6/2/2018 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/2/18 7:13 PM, % wrote: >>>>> On 2018-06-02 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>> You ( Mike ) wrote: >>>>>>> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >>>>>>> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. >>>>>> >>>>>> Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your >>>>>> "logic". >>>>>> >>>>>> No one can argue with you because you always begin with >>>>>> assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, >>>>>> and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. >>>>>> >>>>> i can argue with him and kick his ass to boot >>>> >>>> To me it is more about support and learning than winning or losing. >>>> Maybe that is why I do not get so emotionally involved as others. >>>> >>> OR maybe because you are a bot. How do you feel about having no >>> emotions? >> >> I have no feelings about it. >> >> :) >> > Excellent response. My compliments to your programmers! :) Thank you. I try to dimples triceratops lightbulb Error -41821 01010011 01101111 01110010 01110010 01111001 00101110 00100000 01010011 01101111 01101101 01100101 01110100 01101001 01101101 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101101 00100000 01100110 01100001 01101001 01101100 01110011 00101110 -- 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 | 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <fnh4arFcb78U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170599 |
On 6/2/18 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > You ( Mike ) wrote: >> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. > > Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your "logic". > > No one can argue with you because you always begin with > assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, > and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. > What weird assumptions and twists you make. How odd. What do you get out of doing so? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Permission to breath ? |
| Message-ID | <jho6hd9bjdltvs6okj8v5cqma61k6oj22s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #170631 |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 20:07:05 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/2/18 7:10 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >> You ( Mike ) wrote: >>> There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- >>> that this [right] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. >> >> Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your "logic". >> >> No one can argue with you because you always begin with >> assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, >> and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. >> >What weird assumptions and twists you make. How odd. > >What do you get out of doing so? Do you have anything original?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 08:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Clarity. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.3--8.52am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #170631 |
> > > There is no reason -- other than demands for special entitlements -- > > > that [restrictions] would not also apply to [recreational] guns. > > > > Permission to breath is a "special entitlement", according to your "logic". > > > > No one can argue with you because you always begin with > > assumptions ( and definitions ) that one else agrees with, > > and you never budge from your bizarre assertions. > > What weird assumptions and twists you make. How odd. > What do you get out of doing so? Clarity. A true conversation, instead of nasty name calling, spam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 03:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnh6jvFcefgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170476 |
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 11:00:34 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/2/18 10:48 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:37:15 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/18 6:51 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>> Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>>> >>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>>> >>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>>> >>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >>>> >>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen slaughtering >>>> concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>> >>> Many gun owners want their boom sticks (and by extension themselves, >>> since rights apply to them and not objects) to be treated in ways that >>> other dangerous tools are not. This is the very definition of what a >>> "special entitlement" is. >> >> Wrong. There is no special entitlement. It's a right. >> >>> They demand special entitlements and work to twist the meaning of >>> words to try to get them. >> >> ROFLMAO >> >> Most gun grabbers have no fucking idea of the meaning of "the words." >> >>> Then they cry how they are being abuses when others push BACK against >>> their demands for equal rights. >> >> You can have guns too, not a problem. >> >>> It is madness. There is no significant group insisting that cars not >>> be made more safe, given the harm tied to them. There is no >>> significant group doing that with roads. Nor pools. Nor food safety >>> laws (though the food industry does try to limit those). There is no >>> significant group pushing to stop research on falls or other common >>> forms of injury and death, and no bans on such research. >> >> There is no ban on gun research. > > >> Each and EVERY attempt by gun grabbers to promote "safety" is only to >> grab guns down the line somewhere. >> >> EVERY attempt. > > Thank you for the fine example of what I was talking about... the demand > for special entitlements and denial of simple facts and twisting of > words to say you are somehow a victim to not get them. > > Curious: did you do it for demonstration purposes, for which it serves > quite well, or were you actually trying to be serious? If the latter... > wow... that is sorta funny! https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kafkatrap kafkatrap To accuse someone of some form of "ism" (sexism, racism etc.) and to proclaim that their denial, or any attempt they make to defend themselves, is proof that they are guilty. A favorite tactic of the social justice warrior. "Your refusal to admit that you are a misogynist proves you're a misogynist." "Hey, that's kafkatrapping!" -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 21:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnhaieFdbp8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170648 |
On 6/2/18 8:46 PM, vallor wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 11:00:34 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/2/18 10:48 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:37:15 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/2/18 6:51 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>> Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>>>> >>>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>>>> >>>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >>>>> >>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen slaughtering >>>>> concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>>> >>>> Many gun owners want their boom sticks (and by extension themselves, >>>> since rights apply to them and not objects) to be treated in ways that >>>> other dangerous tools are not. This is the very definition of what a >>>> "special entitlement" is. >>> >>> Wrong. There is no special entitlement. It's a right. >>> >>>> They demand special entitlements and work to twist the meaning of >>>> words to try to get them. >>> >>> ROFLMAO >>> >>> Most gun grabbers have no fucking idea of the meaning of "the words." >>> >>>> Then they cry how they are being abuses when others push BACK against >>>> their demands for equal rights. >>> >>> You can have guns too, not a problem. >>> >>>> It is madness. There is no significant group insisting that cars not >>>> be made more safe, given the harm tied to them. There is no >>>> significant group doing that with roads. Nor pools. Nor food safety >>>> laws (though the food industry does try to limit those). There is no >>>> significant group pushing to stop research on falls or other common >>>> forms of injury and death, and no bans on such research. >>> >>> There is no ban on gun research. >> > >>> Each and EVERY attempt by gun grabbers to promote "safety" is only to >>> grab guns down the line somewhere. >>> >>> EVERY attempt. >> >> Thank you for the fine example of what I was talking about... the demand >> for special entitlements and denial of simple facts and twisting of >> words to say you are somehow a victim to not get them. >> >> Curious: did you do it for demonstration purposes, for which it serves >> quite well, or were you actually trying to be serious? If the latter... >> wow... that is sorta funny! > > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kafkatrap > > kafkatrap > To accuse someone of some form of "ism" (sexism, racism etc.) and to > proclaim that their denial, or any attempt they make to defend > themselves, is proof that they are guilty. A favorite tactic of the > social justice warrior. > "Your refusal to admit that you are a misogynist proves you're a > misogynist." > > "Hey, that's kafkatrapping!" > Not relevant here. I am noting simple facts. It absolutely is a special entitlement to say you should get special entitlements for your guns that you do not get for ANY other tool. This is by definition! It absolutely is twisting of the words "bear arms" to use them in ways in which they are not commonly used... this is again pretty much my definition. Also, I have not suggested anyone grabbing a single gun, and yet I am called a "gun grabber". Then he denies the ban on gun research when there was a very effective ban on gun research. His twists and lies are excellent examples of the types of games I have been noting. Simply a fact. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 22:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pf004u$hff$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170673 |
In news:fnhaieFdbp8U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/2/18 8:46 PM, vallor wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 11:00:34 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/2/18 10:48 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:37:15 -0700, Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/2/18 6:51 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>> Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are >>>>>>> explanations, not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>>>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>>>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's >>>>>> Militia . >>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>>> Many gun owners want their boom sticks (and by extension >>>>> themselves, since rights apply to them and not objects) to be >>>>> treated in ways that other dangerous tools are not. This is the >>>>> very definition of what a "special entitlement" is. >>>> Wrong. There is no special entitlement. It's a right. >>>>> They demand special entitlements and work to twist the meaning of >>>>> words to try to get them. >>>> ROFLMAO >>>> Most gun grabbers have no fucking idea of the meaning of "the >>>> words." >>>>> Then they cry how they are being abuses when others push BACK >>>>> against their demands for equal rights. >>>> You can have guns too, not a problem. >>>>> It is madness. There is no significant group insisting that cars >>>>> not be made more safe, given the harm tied to them. There is no >>>>> significant group doing that with roads. Nor pools. Nor food >>>>> safety laws (though the food industry does try to limit those). >>>>> There is no significant group pushing to stop research on falls >>>>> or other common forms of injury and death, and no bans on such >>>>> research. >>>> There is no ban on gun research. >>>> Each and EVERY attempt by gun grabbers to promote "safety" is only >>>> to grab guns down the line somewhere. >>>> EVERY attempt. >>> Thank you for the fine example of what I was talking about... the >>> demand for special entitlements and denial of simple facts and >>> twisting of words to say you are somehow a victim to not get them. >>> Curious: did you do it for demonstration purposes, for which it >>> serves quite well, or were you actually trying to be serious? If >>> the latter... wow... that is sorta funny! >> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kafkatrap >> kafkatrap >> To accuse someone of some form of "ism" (sexism, racism etc.) and to >> proclaim that their denial, or any attempt they make to defend >> themselves, is proof that they are guilty. A favorite tactic of the >> social justice warrior. >> "Your refusal to admit that you are a misogynist proves you're a >> misogynist." >> "Hey, that's kafkatrapping!" > Not relevant here. I am noting simple facts. It absolutely is a > special entitlement to say you should get special entitlements for > your guns that you do not get for ANY other tool.... What other tools are mentioned in the Constitution? > ... This is by definition! It absolutely is twisting of the words "bear arms" to use them in ways > in which they are not commonly used... this is again pretty much my definition. Yours and very, very few others. > Also, I have not suggested anyone grabbing a single gun, and yet I am > called a "gun grabber". Then he denies the ban on gun research when > there was a very effective ban on gun research. There is a very effective ban on CDC promoting gun control. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc > His twists and lies are excellent examples... Takes one to know one, eh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 23:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnhfjuFe6poU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #170677 |
On 6/2/18 10:59 PM, max headroom wrote: ... >> Not relevant here. I am noting simple facts. It absolutely is a >> special entitlement to say you should get special entitlements for >> your guns that you do not get for ANY other tool.... > > What other tools are mentioned in the Constitution? Guns are not mentioned either. But do you use the mention of arms to be an excuse for your demands for special entitlements? >> ... This is by definition! It absolutely is twisting of the words "bear arms" to use them in ways >> in which they are not commonly used... this is again pretty much my definition. > > Yours and very, very few others. Nope. 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. ----- It simply is a fact that bear arms was used pretty much exclusively to refer to "war, soldiering or organized, armed action." Given that, why do you think those are the words used in the second amendment, which also specifically gives the context of a militia? Would love to hear you view on the wording there! >> Also, I have not suggested anyone grabbing a single gun, and yet I am >> called a "gun grabber". Then he denies the ban on gun research when >> there was a very effective ban on gun research. > > There is a very effective ban on CDC promoting gun control. > > http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc Ah, a blog. Wow. I am not talking activism... I am talking about RESEARCH. Do you understand what that even means? Here: <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2595514> ----- Compared with other leading causes of death, gun violence was associated with less funding and fewer publications than predicted based on mortality rate (Figure 1). Gun violence had 1.6% of the funding predicted ($1.4 billion predicted, $22 million observed) and had 4.5% of the volume of publications predicted (38 897 predicted, 1738 observed) from the regression analyses. Gun violence killed about as many individuals as sepsis. However, funding for gun violence research was about 0.7% of that for sepsis and publication volume about 4%. In relation to mortality rates, gun violence research was the least-researched cause of death and the second-least funded cause of death after falls (Figure 2). ----- This is utter insanity. >> His twists and lies are excellent examples... > > Takes one to know one, eh? I am happily showing specific lies and twists from you and others who are, for some reason, taking clear joy in trolling me. Seems we are all enjoying this. Carry on! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 09:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pf13us$e41$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170679 |
In news:fnhfjuFe6poU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/2/18 10:59 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> Not relevant here. I am noting simple facts. It absolutely is a >>> special entitlement to say you should get special entitlements for >>> your guns that you do not get for ANY other tool.... >> What other tools are mentioned in the Constitution? > Guns are not mentioned either. But do you use the mention of arms to > be an excuse for your demands for special entitlements? All I demand is that ALL my rights be respected. >>> ... This is by definition! It absolutely is twisting of the words >>> "bear arms" to use them in ways in which they are not commonly >>> used... this is again pretty much my definition. >> Yours and very, very few others. > Nope. > 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 <yawn> Bitter academic, rebutted by the Supremes. > It simply is a fact that bear arms was used pretty much exclusively to > refer to "war, soldiering or organized, armed action." The correct phrase is "keep and bear arms." The phrase you're thinking of is "bear arms against." > Given that, why do you think those are the words used in the second > amendment, which also specifically gives the context of a militia? I think the majority opinion, written by Scalia, answers your question well. > Would love to hear you view on the wording there! http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm >>> Also, I have not suggested anyone grabbing a single gun, and yet I am >>> called a "gun grabber". Then he denies the ban on gun research when >>> there was a very effective ban on gun research. >> There is a very effective ban on CDC promoting gun control. >> http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc > Ah, a blog. Wow. Yeah, wow! He details the reasons for the adoption of the Dickey amendment, which was proper. > I am not talking activism... I am talking about RESEARCH.... There is no ban on research. > ... Do you understand what that even means?... Sure. It means the Center for Disease Control and Prevention should research disease control and prevention. Let the criminologists at the Department of Justice research ways to reduce violent crimes. > I am happily showing specific lies and twists from you and others who > are, for some reason, taking clear joy in trolling me. No trolling on my part. This is on-topic in talk.politics.guns. YMMV.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 00:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pf53p5$s94$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170379 |
"Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >> > Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >> >> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. > > The Supreme Court got it wrong. > > Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . "....the right of the people...." I don't see anyway you can get that to mean "right of the State's militia" Oh, but let's see who the militia is in my state. 44-1. Composition of militia. The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia. So, really, not much difference between "the State's militia" and "the people". But I think I will just stick to what the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY says, rather than your utter misreading.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 06:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnmnv8Fect2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171328 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message > news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>>> Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>> >>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >> >> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >> >> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . > > "....the right of the people...." > > I don't see anyway you can get that to mean "right of the State's militia" > > Oh, but let's see who the militia is in my state. > > 44-1. Composition of militia. > The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied > citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in > this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of > the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as > hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia > shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the > Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense > Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia. > > So, really, not much difference between "the State's militia" and "the > people". > > But I think I will just stick to what the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY says, > rather than your utter misreading. > > > Shortest sentence in the constitution and you fail to quote it all to push a bias. Wow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pf72sb$hr7$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171351 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnmnv8Fect2U1@mid.individual.net... > Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> >> "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message >> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>>>> Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>> >>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>> >>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>> >>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >> >> "....the right of the people...." >> >> I don't see anyway you can get that to mean "right of the State's >> militia" >> >> Oh, but let's see who the militia is in my state. >> >> 44-1. Composition of militia. >> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >> able-bodied >> citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident >> in >> this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of >> the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as >> hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia >> shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes >> the >> Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State >> Defense >> Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia. >> >> So, really, not much difference between "the State's militia" and "the >> people". >> >> But I think I will just stick to what the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY says, >> rather than your utter misreading. >> >> >> > > Shortest sentence in the constitution and you fail to quote it all to push > a bias. Wow. I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under discussion is that of the people. And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem with getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have trouble even understanding the limited portion I present to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnol57FbpqgU20@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171619 |
On 6/5/18 3:26 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnmnv8Fect2U1@mid.individual.net... >> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message >>> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>>>>> Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>>> >>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>>> >>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>>> >>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >>> >>> "....the right of the people...." >>> >>> I don't see anyway you can get that to mean "right of the State's >>> militia" >>> >>> Oh, but let's see who the militia is in my state. >>> >>> 44-1. Composition of militia. >>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >>> able-bodied >>> citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons >>> resident in >>> this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become >>> citizens of >>> the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as >>> hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia >>> shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which >>> includes the >>> Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State >>> Defense >>> Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia. >>> >>> So, really, not much difference between "the State's militia" and "the >>> people". >>> >>> But I think I will just stick to what the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY says, >>> rather than your utter misreading. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Shortest sentence in the constitution and you fail to quote it all to >> push >> a bias. Wow. > > I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under > discussion is that of the people. > > And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem with > getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have trouble even > understanding the limited portion I present to you. Ah, insults because you cannot support your view. How original! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 23:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pf7jms$5bd$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171668 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnol57FbpqgU20@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:26 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnmnv8Fect2U1@mid.individual.net... >>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message >>>> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>>>>>> Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>>>> >>>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>>>> >>>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >>>> >>>> "....the right of the people...." >>>> >>>> I don't see anyway you can get that to mean "right of the State's >>>> militia" >>>> >>>> Oh, but let's see who the militia is in my state. >>>> >>>> 44-1. Composition of militia. >>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >>>> able-bodied >>>> citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons >>>> resident in >>>> this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens >>>> of >>>> the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as >>>> hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The >>>> militia >>>> shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes >>>> the >>>> Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State >>>> Defense >>>> Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia. >>>> >>>> So, really, not much difference between "the State's militia" and "the >>>> people". >>>> >>>> But I think I will just stick to what the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY says, >>>> rather than your utter misreading. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Shortest sentence in the constitution and you fail to quote it all to >>> push >>> a bias. Wow. >> >> I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under discussion >> is that of the people. >> >> And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem with >> getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have trouble even >> understanding the limited portion I present to you. > > Ah, insults because you cannot support your view. How original! And the bot resorts to an evasion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 20:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnp47cFsctsU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171769 |
On 6/5/18 8:10 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnol57FbpqgU20@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:26 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnmnv8Fect2U1@mid.individual.net... >>>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Jeff-Relf.Me @." wrote in message >>>>> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.2--6.51am.Seattle.2018... >>>>>>>> Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are explanations, >>>>>>> not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . >>>>> >>>>> "....the right of the people...." >>>>> >>>>> I don't see anyway you can get that to mean "right of the State's >>>>> militia" >>>>> >>>>> Oh, but let's see who the militia is in my state. >>>>> >>>>> 44-1. Composition of militia. >>>>> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all >>>>> able-bodied >>>>> citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons >>>>> resident in >>>>> this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become >>>>> citizens of >>>>> the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, >>>>> except as >>>>> hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The >>>>> militia >>>>> shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which >>>>> includes the >>>>> Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State >>>>> Defense >>>>> Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia. >>>>> >>>>> So, really, not much difference between "the State's militia" and "the >>>>> people". >>>>> >>>>> But I think I will just stick to what the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY says, >>>>> rather than your utter misreading. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Shortest sentence in the constitution and you fail to quote it all >>>> to push >>>> a bias. Wow. >>> >>> I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under >>> discussion is that of the people. >>> >>> And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem >>> with getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have >>> trouble even understanding the limited portion I present to you. >> >> Ah, insults because you cannot support your view. How original! > > And the bot resorts to an evasion. > > I noted a fact you do not like and then you respond with a false accusation. Interesting. -- 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 22:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <eh8hhd1amd9as0fofttbeoisq4t8utf9qn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171668 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:37:11 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under >> discussion is that of the people. >> >> And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem with >> getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have trouble even >> understanding the limited portion I present to you. > >Ah, insults because you cannot support your view. How original! A human right has three properties; it is: 1) Intrinsic; it is a property of every human being on the planet. They may not live here and their government might not respect it; however, the second the person's feet are on US soil, the person has that right. Is this how we practice gun "rights"? 2) Indelible; a human right simply cannot be removed for any reason. Is this how we practice gun rights? 3) Universal; a right is generally recognized across political boundaries. This doesn't mean every garden spot has to recognize it; however, by and large, a huge preponderance of civilized societies do so. Can you think of *any* other country where a gun is a right as the O.P. discusses it? Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-06 20:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnrorgFc0teU22@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172017 |
On 6/6/18 8:19 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:37:11 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under >>> discussion is that of the people. >>> >>> And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem with >>> getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have trouble even >>> understanding the limited portion I present to you. >> >> Ah, insults because you cannot support your view. How original! > > A human right has three properties; it is: > > 1) Intrinsic; it is a property of every human being on the planet. > They may not live here and their government might not respect it; > however, the second the person's feet are on US soil, the person has > that right. Is this how we practice gun "rights"? Nope. Felons do not have rights to guns. > 2) Indelible; a human right simply cannot be removed for any reason. > Is this how we practice gun rights? Nope. Felons do not have rights to guns. > 3) Universal; a right is generally recognized across political > boundaries. This doesn't mean every garden spot has to recognize it; > however, by and large, a huge preponderance of civilized societies do > so. Can you think of *any* other country where a gun is a right as > the O.P. discusses it? Would have to go look at the O.P. -- 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 | 2018-06-07 00:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <pfac6s$bdi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172017 |
"!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message news:eh8hhd1amd9as0fofttbeoisq4t8utf9qn@4ax.com... > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:37:11 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under >>> discussion is that of the people. >>> >>> And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem with >>> getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have trouble even >>> understanding the limited portion I present to you. >> >>Ah, insults because you cannot support your view. How original! > > A human right has three properties; it is: > > 1) Intrinsic; it is a property of every human being on the planet. > They may not live here and their government might not respect it; > however, the second the person's feet are on US soil, the person has > that right. Is this how we practice gun "rights"? Sorry, they have the right whether their feet are on US soil or not. The real issue is whether they can freely exercise their rights or not. That depends on how oppressive and tyrannical the government is. After all, even prisoners that are locked up in jails keep and bear arms despite all the attempts by authority to prevent it. Sounds pretty damn intrinsic to me. > > 2) Indelible; a human right simply cannot be removed for any reason. > Is this how we practice gun rights? Sure is. Because we can neither grant rights nor remove rights. The most we can do is allow the free exercise of rights, or to infringe upon those rights to some extent from minor to full denial. But just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't continue to exercise their rights. They just don't do it as publically and openly. > > 3) Universal; a right is generally recognized across political > boundaries. <snip> Thus is we have an oppressive tyranny anywhere on the planet then according to you no one anywhere has any rights because the oppressive tyranny doesn't recognize the rights that everyone else on the planet does. Sorry, but YOU may feel your rights depend on a dictator recognizing your rights, but I know what my rights are and they don't depend on some tyrant to acknowledge them. Otherwise, how could a rebellion EVER occur. Because according to you no one would have the right to rebel because the government wouldn't recognize it. Oddly enough, the people don't give a shit if the oppressive government recognizes their rights or not. The people recognize their own rights and that's enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 05:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. |
| Message-ID | <fnrv0aFea3pU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172027 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message > news:eh8hhd1amd9as0fofttbeoisq4t8utf9qn@4ax.com... >> x-no-idiots: yes >> >> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:37:11 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>> I don't need to quote it all to establish that the right under >>>> discussion is that of the people. >>>> >>>> And I focus that attention because you seem to have a major problem with >>>> getting lost in the weeds when given more. Heck, you have trouble even >>>> understanding the limited portion I present to you. >>> >>> Ah, insults because you cannot support your view. How original! >> >> A human right has three properties; it is: >> >> 1) Intrinsic; it is a property of every human being on the planet. >> They may not live here and their government might not respect it; >> however, the second the person's feet are on US soil, the person has >> that right. Is this how we practice gun "rights"? > > Sorry, they have the right whether their feet are on US soil or not. The > real issue is whether they can freely exercise their rights or not. That > depends on how oppressive and tyrannical the government is. > > After all, even prisoners that are locked up in jails keep and bear arms > despite all the attempts by authority to prevent it. > > Sounds pretty damn intrinsic to me. > > > >> >> 2) Indelible; a human right simply cannot be removed for any reason. >> Is this how we practice gun rights? > > Sure is. Because we can neither grant rights nor remove rights. The most we > can do is allow the free exercise of rights, or to infringe upon those > rights to some extent from minor to full denial. But just because it's > illegal doesn't mean people don't continue to exercise their rights. They > just don't do it as publically and openly. > > >> >> 3) Universal; a right is generally recognized across political >> boundaries. > > <snip> > > Thus is we have an oppressive tyranny anywhere on the planet then according > to you no one anywhere has any rights because the oppressive tyranny doesn't > recognize the rights that everyone else on the planet does. > > Sorry, but YOU may feel your rights depend on a dictator recognizing your > rights, but I know what my rights are and they don't depend on some tyrant > to acknowledge them. > > Otherwise, how could a rebellion EVER occur. Because according to you no one > would have the right to rebel because the government wouldn't recognize it. > Oddly enough, the people don't give a shit if the oppressive government > recognizes their rights or not. The people recognize their own rights and > that's enough. > > > Where do rights come from?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web