Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #170017 > unrolled thread
| Started by | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:41 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 02:29 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:38 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 12:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:43 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:21 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:21 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 05:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 05:52 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 07:04 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-10 04:35 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 01:39 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 15:46 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 15:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Corwin Esterness <woolcross@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 12:00 -0600
Truth Avoidance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Truth Avoidance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:56 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Bill (not Jillians) DOW #3" <noemail@none.not> - 2018-06-09 20:06 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-06-12 00:11 +0100
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 17:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 22:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 11:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnoue6FbpqgU39@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171754 |
On 6/5/18 6:46 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnompoFbpqgU25@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:50 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>> good solution. >>>>>> >>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>> >>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong >> >> There are cases where you need to defend yourself. But notice how >> Scout jumps repeatedly to those very rare cases and ignores the bigger >> picture. He is twisting context and meaning. > > Violent crime is rare? It is less common than instances of NOT having violent crime. Absolutely. And the numbers are going down. Does not mean the numbers are not concerning, but in looking at the big picture picking just times when a violent crime is happening to someone is very clearly cherry picking to push your agenda. > Oh, well in that case we don't need gun control then, since according to > you violent crime is so rare that we need not concern ourselves with it. Another fine example of lying about my views... and of pushing an absurd idea that crime is the only health issue around guns. I would prefer if you would be honest. -- 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 21:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf7f00$g93$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171632 |
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bb3pl0.bua.17.3@news.alt.net... > On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>> >>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>> >>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>> class >>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>> >>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you want >>>> a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is likely to >>>> lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>> >>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >> >> So self defense only works if you kill something? >> >> >> > why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong Apparently, according to you, the victims of violent crime deserve what happened to them because according to you they did something wrong. Meanwhile, I note that, in general, the victims of violent crime are guilty of one thing only being alive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnouaiFrfodU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171753 |
On 6/5/18 6:45 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:bb3pl0.bua.17.3@news.alt.net... >> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>> class >>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say >>>>> you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>>> >>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>> >>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>> >>> >>> >> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong > > Apparently, according to you, the victims of violent crime deserve what > happened to them because according to you they did something wrong. You recently asked for examples of where you lie about what I say. GREAT EXAMPLE! Thanks, I suppose. > Meanwhile, I note that, in general, the victims of violent crime are > guilty of one thing only being alive. Why do you associate guilt with that? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf7ksc$acu$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171757 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnouaiFrfodU2@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 6:45 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:bb3pl0.bua.17.3@news.alt.net... >>> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>>>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you >>>>>> want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>>>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>>>> >>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>> >>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong >> >> Apparently, according to you, the victims of violent crime deserve what >> happened to them because according to you they did something wrong. > > You recently asked for examples of where you lie about what I say. GREAT > EXAMPLE! Please note that the program "Snit" now claims to also be the poster "%"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnp4vpFbpqgU46@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171773 |
On 6/5/18 8:36 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnouaiFrfodU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 6:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:bb3pl0.bua.17.3@news.alt.net... >>>> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS >>>>>>>>> in class >>>>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are >>>>>>>> trapped, would you rather have a baseball >>>>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>>> good solution. >>>>>>> >>>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>>> >>>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong >>> >>> Apparently, according to you, the victims of violent crime deserve >>> what happened to them because according to you they did something wrong. >> >> You recently asked for examples of where you lie about what I say. >> GREAT EXAMPLE! > > Please note that the program "Snit" now claims to also be the poster "%" Ah, my mistake: you lied about someone else's comments in addition to lying about mine. -- 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 17:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171630 |
On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> >>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>> teachers! >>>> >>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>> >>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>> >>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in class >>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>> >>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>> bat or a gun? >>>> >>>> >>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you >>> want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>> >> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something > > So self defense only works if you kill something? See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over that of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it (your view was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and not legislatures). Weird. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter DoW #420 <fnvw@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <999ehd5a1frnhikjqsqd2v7hupc1i707a1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #171698 |
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:01:45 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>> >>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in class >>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>> >>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you >>>> want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>> >>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >> >> So self defense only works if you kill something? > >See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. Then you ask us to >accept YOUR view of the second amendment over that of the scholars and >the common historic understanding of it (your view was not put into law >until 2008, and then by judges and not legislatures). > >Weird. First <TINW> <TINU> When will you respond with a real answer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf7igk$vlv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171698 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>> >>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>> >>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>> class >>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>> >>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you want >>>> a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is likely to >>>> lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>> >>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >> >> So self defense only works if you kill something? > > See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. Do what? Accept what he said at face value? Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? >Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over that of >the scholars and the common historic understanding of it (your view was not >put into law until 2008, and then by judges and not legislatures). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd protects an individual right. After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the 2nd Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have standing to use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that the 2nd does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in 1939...that nearly SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an 'individual interpretation' was adopted. No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does apply to individuals. Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would indicate your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The individual interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the Court often stated that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th Amendment) or that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been incorporated by SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than saying it never applied to individuals until 2008. "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller (No. 696) Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they supplied???? So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the facts are on your side, because they aren't. I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question of whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that refutes your position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnp3poFbpqgU41@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #171762 |
On 6/5/18 7:55 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>> class >>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say >>>>> you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>>> >>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>> >>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >> >> See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. > > Do what? Accept what he said at face value? > > Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? > >> Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over that >> of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it (your view >> was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and not >> legislatures). > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html > > Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd > protects an individual right. > > After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't > Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an > individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the 2nd > Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have standing to > use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that the 2nd > does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in 1939...that nearly > SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an 'individual interpretation' was > adopted. > > No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you > examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller > showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does apply > to individuals. > > Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you > apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would indicate > your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The individual > interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the Court often stated > that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th Amendment) or > that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been incorporated by > SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than saying it never applied > to individuals until 2008. > > "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the > debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and > States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly > enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting > in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for > military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for > service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by > themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." > > 307 U.S. 174 > > United States v. Miller (No. 696) > > > Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep and > bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they supplied???? > > So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the facts > are on your side, because they aren't. > > I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question of > whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that refutes your > position. > > What part of the above do you think has not been beaten to death and refuted? -- 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 | 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pffk0k$bop$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #171775 |
In news:fnp3poFbpqgU41@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/5/18 7:55 PM, Scout wrote: >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS >>>>>>>> in class rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are >>>>>>> trapped, would you rather have a baseball bat or a gun? >>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>> good solution. >>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>> See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. >> Do what? Accept what he said at face value? >> Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? >>> Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over >>> that of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it >>> (your view was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and >>> not legislatures). >> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html >> Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd >> protects an individual right. >> After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't >> Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an >> individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the 2nd >> Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have standing >> to use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that >> the 2nd does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in 1939...that nearly >> SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an 'individual interpretation' >> was adopted. >> No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you >> examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller >> showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does >> apply to individuals. >> Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you >> apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would >> indicate your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The individual >> interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the Court often >> stated that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th >> Amendment) or that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been >> incorporated by SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than >> saying it never applied to individuals until 2008. >> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the >> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies >> and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show >> plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically >> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of >> citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that >> ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to >> appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common >> use at the time." >> 307 U.S. 174 >> United States v. Miller (No. 696) >> Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep >> and bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they >> supplied???? >> So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the >> facts are on your side, because they aren't. >> I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question of >> whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that refutes >> your position. > What part of the above do you think has not been beaten to death and > refuted? All of it... because you can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo13cpFdgbuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172547 |
On 6/8/18 9:08 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fnp3poFbpqgU41@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/5/18 7:55 PM, Scout wrote: >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>>> teachers! > >>>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 > >>>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. > >>>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS >>>>>>>>> in class rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. > >>>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are >>>>>>>> trapped, would you rather have a baseball bat or a gun? > >>>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>>> good solution. > >>>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something > >>>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? > >>>> See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. > >>> Do what? Accept what he said at face value? > >>> Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? > >>>> Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over >>>> that of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it >>>> (your view was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and >>>> not legislatures). > >>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html > >>> Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd >>> protects an individual right. > >>> After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't >>> Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an >>> individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the 2nd >>> Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have standing >>> to use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that >>> the 2nd does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in 1939...that nearly >>> SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an 'individual interpretation' >>> was adopted. > >>> No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you >>> examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller >>> showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does >>> apply to individuals. > >>> Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you >>> apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would >>> indicate your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The individual >>> interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the Court often >>> stated that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th >>> Amendment) or that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been >>> incorporated by SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than >>> saying it never applied to individuals until 2008. > >>> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the >>> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies >>> and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show >>> plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically >>> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of >>> citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that >>> ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to >>> appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common >>> use at the time." > >>> 307 U.S. 174 > >>> United States v. Miller (No. 696) > >>> Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep >>> and bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they >>> supplied???? > >>> So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the >>> facts are on your side, because they aren't. > >>> I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question of >>> whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that refutes >>> your position. > >> What part of the above do you think has not been beaten to death and >> refuted? > > All of it... because you can't. > > Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. -- 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 | 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pffn1f$phk$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172549 |
In news:fo13cpFdgbuU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/8/18 9:08 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fnp3poFbpqgU41@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/5/18 7:55 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS >>>>>>>>>> in class rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are >>>>>>>>> trapped, would you rather have a baseball bat or a gun? >>>>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>>>> good solution. >>>>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>>>> See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. >>>> Do what? Accept what he said at face value? >>>> Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? >>>>> Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over >>>>> that of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it >>>>> (your view was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and >>>>> not legislatures). >>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html >>>> Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd >>>> protects an individual right. >>>> After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't >>>> Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an >>>> individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the >>>> 2nd Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have >>>> standing to use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that >>>> the 2nd does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in >>>> 1939...that nearly SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an >>>> 'individual interpretation' was adopted. >>>> No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you >>>> examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller >>>> showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does >>>> apply to individuals. >>>> Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you >>>> apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would >>>> indicate your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The >>>> individual interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the >>>> Court often stated that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th >>>> Amendment) or that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been >>>> incorporated by SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than >>>> saying it never applied to individuals until 2008. >>>> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the >>>> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies >>>> and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show >>>> plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically >>>> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of >>>> citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that >>>> ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to >>>> appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in >>>> common use at the time." >>>> 307 U.S. 174 >>>> United States v. Miller (No. 696) >>>> Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep >>>> and bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they >>>> supplied???? >>>> So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the >>>> facts are on your side, because they aren't. >>>> I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question >>>> of whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that >>>> refutes your position. >>> What part of the above do you think has not been beaten to death and >>> refuted? >> All of it... because you can't. > Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. > It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in 2008" lie out of the water!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172554 |
On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> All of it... because you can't. >> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. >> It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. > My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in 2008" lie out of the water! The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS. Remember: * 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. All of that is very well supported. -- 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 | 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172556 |
In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> All of it... because you can't. >>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. >>> It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >> 2008" lie out of the water! > The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time the > new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... Yeah, that's the one!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo1899FcgkoU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172558 |
On 6/8/18 10:44 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: > >>>>> All of it... because you can't. > >>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. >>>> It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. > >>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>> 2008" lie out of the water! > >> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time the >> new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... > > Yeah, that's the one! > > So you have nothing. Fair enough. Does not mean you have to agree... after all you clearly view things far more though the eyes of emotion than I do. No harm done. No offense taken. But I suspect you will want to push insults. I am not interested in that. We disagree. So what? Maybe at some point you will even find evidence to go against what I say... and if you do present it. I am open to it. The closest that has been done is pointing to the early laws being state and how federal amendments have a different impact. THAT actually showed some logic and reason and effort. Other than that there has not been much. So be it. -- 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 | 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pffrg5$ee9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172558 |
"max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... > In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: > >>>>> All of it... because you can't. > >>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. >>>> It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. > >>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>> 2008" lie out of the water! > >> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time the >> new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... > > Yeah, that's the one! Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few specific keywords. But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172561 |
On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message > news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >> >>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >> >>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. >>>>> It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >> >>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >> >>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time the >>> new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >> >> Yeah, that's the one! > > Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with what > is actually being replied to other than referencing a few specific > keywords. > > But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. > > I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the following points. I did. There was no real counter other than, perhaps, the second point (but there were and ARE laws now that even shoot down that effort at a rebuttal). I am open to comments about the topic. Not interested in nonsense insults. * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action"). * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. * I back evidence-based policies. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pfgl26$tr3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172562 |
In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >>> Yeah, that's the one! >> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >> specific keywords. >> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. > At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the > following points. I did. There was no real counter ... That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported by various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fo29a6Fkd61U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #172576 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: > >>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. > >>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. > >>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! > >>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... > >>>> Yeah, that's the one! > >>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>> specific keywords. > >>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. > >>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. > >> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... > > That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. > > You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted > your claims, supported by > various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. > > Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? > > > Why would you call research and historical fact opinion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pfgrpc$7p5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172598 |
In news:fo29a6Fkd61U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first >>>>>> time the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>> specific keywords. >>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported by >> various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. >> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? > Why would you call research and historical fact opinion? Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary Committee?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web