Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #245235 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-09 05:49 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-04 12:04 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:07 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 22:41 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:03 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:10 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:43 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:41 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:34 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 23:01 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:04 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:12 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:38 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 12:57 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:36 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner š¶ē¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:42 -0600
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:47 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner š¶ē¬ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:52 -0600
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:58 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:17 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:05 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:30 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:33 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 17:09 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 17:42 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:44 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-09 09:47 -0800
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-10 00:20 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands BeamMeUpScotty <Not-Sure@idiocracy.gov> - 2019-01-10 06:53 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-11 00:44 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:43 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:11 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:29 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:37 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 12:08 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:39 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:35 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 02:26 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:17 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:19 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:50 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:00 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:02 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:16 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:02 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:22 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 13:24 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:11 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:40 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:03 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 10:33 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:54 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:40 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:56 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:09 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:27 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:02 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:50 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:21 -0500
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:24 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:54 -0500
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-09 05:46 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:06 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:35 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:25 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:22 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 13:18 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 22:15 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:16 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:41 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:23 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:10 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:21 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:32 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:04 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:37 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:55 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 15:41 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:47 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:24 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:46 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 12:21 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:57 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 18:36 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:36 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:15 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 23:30 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-08 03:23 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 05:49 +0000
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 13:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <Zx8ZD.1644$f65.325@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #246606 |
On 1/8/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/8/19 12:00 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> Scout wrote: >>>>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>>>> to have in place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>>>> >>>>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >>>> >>>> How much of your money has been spent on the research >>>> you claim to want done? >>> >>> More than you have spent on Trumpās wall. >> >> I pay income taxes that help fund federal projects.Ā The government >> is currently installing sections of Trumpās 30-foot-high wall. >> https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/us-mexico-border-wall-being-built-slowly/#slide-1 >> >> That means I have spent something on Trump's wall. > > Ah, so by spending you include taxes. Then I have spent money and support > spending more money on health and safety research on guns. You have spent no money on that. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 11:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <HB6ZD.854$xN2.496@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #246481 |
On 1/8/2019 5:59 AM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>> to have in place. >>>>> >>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>> >>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>> >>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >> >> How much of your money has been spent on the research you claim >> to want done? >> > > More than you have spent on Trumpās wall. You haven't spent any money on research into gun violence. Stop lying. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 00:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q142n6$dha$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #246459 |
"Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message news:kvZYD.5877$wz4.2259@fx10.iad... > On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>> news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>> to have in place. >>>> >>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>> >>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >> >> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. > > How much of your money has been spent on the research you claim > to want done? Further how much of other people's money would he want spent on such research?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9lj9hF87ciU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246804 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message > news:kvZYD.5877$wz4.2259@fx10.iad... >> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>> to have in place. >>>>> >>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>> >>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>> >>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >> >> How much of your money has been spent on the research you claim >> to want done? > > Further how much of other people's money would he want spent on such > research? > > How much do you want spent on a symbolic wall? I want research into health and safety issues to be ongoing and ever-improving, at least until the health issue is reduced heavily. So you want less money spent on such research ā GOOD, so do I. Letās work together so that the US is not alone as an industrialized nation with a serious gun issue. Let us work together so we do not have another generation seeing school shootings as we see 9/11. And letās research the hell out of the problem so we can use evidence-based methods to get there and not your bias or mine. Fair enough... or do you want to just go with your bias and avoid evidence for the rest of your life?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 07:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q0qk6e$sou$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245482 |
In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>>> And THERE IT IS. >>> IT being truth. Sure. >> IT being bias, plainly. > Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit > analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which was busted for misusing federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions which caused its previous disgrace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245578 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. > >>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. > >>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. > >>>>> And THERE IT IS. > >>>> IT being truth. Sure. > >>> IT being bias, plainly. > >> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. > > The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which > was busted for misusing > federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the > actions which caused its > previous disgrace. > > > What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 10:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q0qtcq$ps5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245601 |
In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >>>> IT being bias, plainly. >>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. >> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which was busted for misusing >> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions which caused its >> previous disgrace. > What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was busted for misusing federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions which caused its previous disgrace?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9ccanF7fmcU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245614 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. > >>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. > >>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. > >>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. > >>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. > >>>>> IT being bias, plainly. > >>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. > >>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>> was busted for misusing >>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>> actions which caused its >>> previous disgrace. > >> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? > > Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was > busted for misusing federal > funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions > which caused its previous > disgrace? > > > If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the government to do its job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 10:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <D37YD.307970$nY5.274885@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #245617 |
On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >> >>>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >> >>>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >> >>>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >> >>>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >> >>>>>> IT being bias, plainly. >> >>>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. >> >>>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>>> was busted for misusing >>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>> actions which caused its >>>> previous disgrace. >> >>> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? >> >> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >> busted for misusing federal >> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >> which caused its previous >> disgrace? >> >> >> > > If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the > government to do its job. Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9ce47F7rs7U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245629 |
Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: > On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 >>>>>>>>> PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >>> >>>>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >>> >>>>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>> >>>>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >>> >>>>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >>> >>>>>>> IT being bias, plainly. >>> >>>>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>>>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. >>> >>>>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>>>> was busted for misusing >>>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>>> actions which caused its >>>>> previous disgrace. >>> >>>> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? >>> >>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>> busted for misusing federal >>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>> which caused its previous >>> disgrace? >>> >>> >>> >> >> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >> government to do its job. > > Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? > > https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html > > Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. > We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:40 -0700 |
| Subject | No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <LK7YD.110622$hN7.88245@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #245638 |
On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: > Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>> >>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>> government to do its job. >> >> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? >> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. > > We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and > use. I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. Please provide evidence to support your claim that "We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and use." By the way, lots and lots of research has already been done on firearm safety. Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. We know that the Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We know that you're a wizened little troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <g9cgfbF8cbnU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245659 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>> government to do its job. >>> >>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? >>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. >> >> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >> use. > > I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. > > Please provide evidence to support your claim that > "We have health and safety research on pretty much > everything we buy and use." > > By the way, lots and lots of research has already been > done on firearm safety. > > Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you > will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants > to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. > > We know that the Constitution says the right of the people > to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. > > We know that you're a wizened little troll. > What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws and regulations?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:09 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <W98YD.83727$a66.35779@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #245665 |
On 1/5/2019 11:56 AM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>> government to do its job. >>>> >>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? >>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. >>> >>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >>> use. >> >> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >> >> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >> everything we buy and use." >> >> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >> done on firearm safety. >> >> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >> >> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >> >> We know that you're a wizened little troll. >> ================================================== ================================================== ============= WARNING! WARNING! =============== ========== GOAL POST MOVES AHEAD! ============ ================= WARNING! ==================== ================================================== ================================================== > > What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws and > regulations? No one is trying to "regulate" toothpaste right out of existence the way you are trying to do with guns. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <Oq8YD.169727$R85.167943@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #245665 |
On 1/5/2019 12:56 PM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>> government to do its job. >>>> >>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? >>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. >>> >>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >>> use. >> >> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >> >> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >> everything we buy and use." >> >> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >> done on firearm safety. >> >> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >> >> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >> >> We know that you're a wizened little troll. > > What product do you use that is not subject to health > and safety laws and regulations? Don't try to avoid the question by changing the subject. You claim "We have health and safety RESEARCH on pretty much everything we buy and use." Your challenge is to provide evidence to support that claim. Your refusal to provide any evidence suggests you don't because you can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 14:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <g9ckb3F96s2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245673 |
On 1/5/19 1:27 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 1/5/2019 12:56 PM, Snit wrote: >> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>>> government to do its job. >>>>> >>>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this >>>>> research? >>>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun >>>>> violence. >>>> >>>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >>>> use. >>> >>> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >>> >>> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >>> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >>> everything we buy and use." >>> >>> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >>> done on firearm safety. >>> >>> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >>> will be hurt or killed.Ā We know that if a bad guy wants >>> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >>> >>> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >>> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >>> >>> We know that you're a wizened little troll. >> >> What product do you use that is not subject to health >> and safety laws and regulations? > > Don't try to avoid the question by changing the subject. > You claim "We have health and safety RESEARCH on pretty > much everything we buy and use."Ā Your challenge is to > provide evidence to support that claim.Ā Your refusal > to provide any evidence suggests you don't because you can't. The fact you cannot think of a single product you use which is not subject to health and safety laws and regulations backs my point quite well that it applies to pretty much every item we use. It does to the computer I am typing on, the desk my computer sits on, the paint on the walls in my house, the way those walls are made, the chair I am sitting on, the clothing I am wearing, the materials my wife and daughter are using to make bombs as I type this, the weights sitting on my desk which I sometimes use, the pencils and pens on my desk, the light in the room, the phone in my pocket... etc. Really very hard to think of anything it does not apply to. So hard you failed. Does not mean you will always fail. I would have to check to see if this applies to, say, pebbles you might have in your yard -- maybe not (though there are such laws and policies on sand and gravel and the like as you work with them in greater quantities). But I will give you another chance: if you think I am wrong then name the products you use which are NOT subject to health and safety laws. Note I am NOT excluding guns in this. -- 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 | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <5g923elr88rsp2aspau8pjsh628nuulm0d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245665 |
On 5 Jan 2019 19:56:27 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>> government to do its job. >>>> >>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? >>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. >>> >>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >>> use. >> >> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >> >> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >> everything we buy and use." >> >> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >> done on firearm safety. >> >> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >> >> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >> >> We know that you're a wizened little troll. >> > >What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws and >regulations? Pencils. Looking forward to your running away instead of showing us the health and safety laws and regulations on pencils. Viggo: It's not what you did, son, that angers me so. It's who you did it to. Iosef: Who? That fucking nobody? Viggo: That "fuckin' nobody"... is John Wick. He once was an associate of ours. They call him "Baba Yaga." Iosef: The Boogeyman? Viggo: Well John wasn't exactly the Boogeyman. He was the one you sent to kill the fucking Boogeyman. Iosef: Oh. Viggo: John is a man of focus, commitment, sheer will... something you know very little about. I once saw him kill three men in a bar... with a pencil, with a fucking pencil.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <q11cff$2ff$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245708 |
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message news:5g923elr88rsp2aspau8pjsh628nuulm0d@4ax.com... > On 5 Jan 2019 19:56:27 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>>> government to do its job. >>>>> >>>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this >>>>> research? >>>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun >>>>> violence. >>>> >>>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >>>> use. >>> >>> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >>> >>> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >>> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >>> everything we buy and use." >>> >>> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >>> done on firearm safety. >>> >>> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >>> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >>> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >>> >>> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >>> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >>> >>> We know that you're a wizened little troll. >>> >> >>What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws and >>regulations? > > Pencils. > > Looking forward to your running away instead of showing us the health > and safety laws and regulations on pencils. Imagine the outcry from 1st Amendment supporters if they attempted to ban pencils.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <g9itmhFknokU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246436 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message > news:5g923elr88rsp2aspau8pjsh628nuulm0d@4ax.com... >> On 5 Jan 2019 19:56:27 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>>>> government to do its job. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this >>>>>> research? >>>>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun >>>>>> violence. >>>>> >>>>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >>>>> use. >>>> >>>> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >>>> >>>> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >>>> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >>>> everything we buy and use." >>>> >>>> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >>>> done on firearm safety. >>>> >>>> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >>>> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >>>> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >>>> >>>> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >>>> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >>>> >>>> We know that you're a wizened little troll. >>>> >>> >>> What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws and >>> regulations? >> >> Pencils. >> >> Looking forward to your running away instead of showing us the health >> and safety laws and regulations on pencils. > > Imagine the outcry from 1st Amendment supporters if they attempted to ban > pencils. > > > What is the risk? What is the benefit? What is the balance? Your naive rebuttal merely shows how far over your head the simple facts go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 04:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <bh593epoc5l2k2rtfp6ig76gvfd7v272tn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246446 |
On 8 Jan 2019 06:18:57 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> >> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >> news:5g923elr88rsp2aspau8pjsh628nuulm0d@4ax.com... >>> On 5 Jan 2019 19:56:27 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>>>>> government to do its job. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this >>>>>>> research? >>>>>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>>>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun >>>>>>> violence. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >>>>>> use. >>>>> >>>>> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >>>>> >>>>> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >>>>> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >>>>> everything we buy and use." >>>>> >>>>> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >>>>> done on firearm safety. >>>>> >>>>> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >>>>> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >>>>> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >>>>> >>>>> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >>>>> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >>>>> >>>>> We know that you're a wizened little troll. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws and >>>> regulations? >>> >>> Pencils. >>> >>> Looking forward to your running away instead of showing us the health >>> and safety laws and regulations on pencils. >> >> Imagine the outcry from 1st Amendment supporters if they attempted to ban >> pencils. >> >> >> > >What is the risk? What is the benefit? What is the balance? > >Your naive rebuttal merely shows how far over your head the simple facts >go. TRANSLATION: "I posted a bunch of shit on pencils and tried to pass it off as "health and safety regulations" but that failed-- miserably, I might add. So now I will try to change the subject with some insults." [chuckle]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 00:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <q142n8$dha$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #246465 |
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message news:bh593epoc5l2k2rtfp6ig76gvfd7v272tn@4ax.com... > On 8 Jan 2019 06:18:57 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>> news:5g923elr88rsp2aspau8pjsh628nuulm0d@4ax.com... >>>> On 5 Jan 2019 19:56:27 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>>>>>> government to do its job. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this >>>>>>>> research? >>>>>>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>>>>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun >>>>>>>> violence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> use. >>>>>> >>>>>> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >>>>>> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >>>>>> everything we buy and use." >>>>>> >>>>>> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >>>>>> done on firearm safety. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >>>>>> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >>>>>> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >>>>>> >>>>>> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >>>>>> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >>>>>> >>>>>> We know that you're a wizened little troll. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws >>>>> and >>>>> regulations? >>>> >>>> Pencils. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your running away instead of showing us the health >>>> and safety laws and regulations on pencils. >>> >>> Imagine the outcry from 1st Amendment supporters if they attempted to >>> ban >>> pencils. >>> >>> >>> >> >>What is the risk? What is the benefit? What is the balance? We accept your admission that your asserted research doesn't exist as you claimed it did. >>Your naive rebuttal merely shows how far over your head the simple facts >>go. > > TRANSLATION: "I posted a bunch of shit on pencils and tried to pass it > off as "health and safety regulations" but that failed-- miserably, I > might add. So now I will try to change the subject with some insults." > > [chuckle] >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web