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 🐶笛 <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 🐶笛 <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 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <q0o3n1$j55$4@dont-email.me> |
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. Once again, Snit 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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 12:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <avev2edovlqbs5j5uf6b1fmhek8mi1uaan@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245235 |
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 09:03:51 -0800, "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. > >Once again, Snit 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. > And once again he pretends not to know why the CDC shouldn't study guns, and pretends there are no other agencies who could or should be doing it. He LOVES biased and incompetent research if it goes along with his beliefs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245235 |
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. > > Once again, Snit 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. > > > Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations to have in place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 22:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q0pjj9$d86$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245476 |
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. >> Once again, Snit 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. > Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis > in deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. Laws and regulations, maybe, but not rights. You're not talking about zoning laws or freight rates. The Founding Fathers believed the right to keep and bear arms so important they included it as a stand-alone amendment. Once again, Snit 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 06:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245481 |
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. > >>> Once again, Snit 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. > >> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis >> in deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. > > Laws and regulations, maybe, but not rights. You're not talking about > zoning laws or freight rates. > The Founding Fathers believed the right to keep and bear arms so > important they included it as a > stand-alone amendment. And all rights are limited and balanced. > > Once again, Snit 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. > > > Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. Notice how hard you work to reject this to push your bias.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 23:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fFYXD.78241$qC3.46650@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #245482 |
On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: > 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 You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is banning guns. Cut the shit. -- 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 07:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9b3fpFt9b2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245487 |
Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: > On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: >> 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 > > You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is > banning guns. Cut the shit. > Another emotional outburst from you — going to unsupported meta debate accusations. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <RLYXD.115600$ka6.86415@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #245490 |
On 1/4/2019 11:08 PM, Snit wrote: > Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >> On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>> 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 >> >> You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is >> banning guns. Cut the shit. >> > > Another emotional outburst No - a statement of indisputable fact. -- 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 07:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9b3udFtc5bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245493 |
Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: > On 1/4/2019 11:08 PM, Snit wrote: >> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>> On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> 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 >>> >>> You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is >>> banning guns. Cut the shit. >>> >> >> Another emotional outburst > > No - a statement of indisputable fact. > Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. And you fear it so much you respond by snipping and lying. 100% predictable. Love how you back yourself into such corners. It is like you have no self control.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 23:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <TeZXD.211842$le.148158@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #245495 |
On 1/4/2019 11:16 PM, Snit wrote: > Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >> On 1/4/2019 11:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>> On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is >>>> banning guns. Cut the shit. >>>> >>> >>> Another emotional outburst >> >> No - a statement of indisputable fact. >> > > Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis Fuck off. You just want to grab guns. You can't do "risk / benefit analysis", and you are incapable of reading the work of those who can. You just want to prohibit guns, and you will bloviate and bullshit about "risk / benefit analysis" in a transparent attempt to grab guns. You're a fraud, Snot. You are not what you wish to pretend to be, and we all can see it. Fuck off. -- 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 | 2019-01-05 03:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q10mg7$t6d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245493 |
"Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message news:RLYXD.115600$ka6.86415@fx16.iad... > On 1/4/2019 11:08 PM, Snit wrote: >> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>> On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> 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 >>> >>> You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is >>> banning guns. Cut the shit. >>> >> >> Another emotional outburst > > No - a statement of indisputable fact. Careful Rudy, when you start seeing the repeated one liner responses, you know that the Snit AI is becoming unstable, will crash in the near future and it will require a full system reboot to restore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9i608Ffvv4U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246348 |
On 1/5/19 1:41 AM, Scout wrote: ... >>>> You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is >>>> banning guns. Cut the shit. >>>> >>> >>> Another emotional outburst >> >> No - a statement of indisputable fact. > > Careful Rudy, when you start seeing the repeated one liner responses, > you know that the Snit AI is becoming unstable, will crash in the near > future and it will require a full system reboot to restore. > > Why advertise your insecurity that way? It is weird to me. Anyway, let us get back to the topic of doing risk / benefit analysis for what arms we allow and under what conditions. Clearly we do this... making it VERY hard to legally have a nuke and even harder to legally have ricin. We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. There are levels of risks and benefits, and we balance them. We should do the same with all arms... and we should improve our ability to do so via research. All of this is just common sense... but it also scares you. Interesting to watch. It is why you and Rudy scream out bizarre things like his "All you care about is banning guns" nonsense. It is not at all based on my views... it is an effort to change the topic from using common sense, something you and he are against. -- 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 | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 23:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o1XYD.286762$J8.120409@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #246365 |
On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: > We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. Government regulations have artificially raised the price, but that's another matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9itmjFknokU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246440 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: > >> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. > > Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. > Government regulations have artificially raised the price, > but that's another matter. > There are hurdles. As their should be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 01:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <guZYD.5876$wz4.2805@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #246449 |
On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >> >>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >> >> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >> but that's another matter. > > There are hurdles. As their should be. Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You have to be able to pay the purchase price. ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9jol5Fqga7U10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246458 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>> >>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>> but that's another matter. >> >> There are hurdles. As their should be. > > Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: > (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean > background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You > have to be able to pay the purchase price. > > ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. > That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] > So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see agreement here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Ru6ZD.35459$Oc4.8415@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #246483 |
On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>> >>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>> but that's another matter. >>> >>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >> >> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >> >> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] > > So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. > Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. > Good to see agreement here. Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background checks for all gun purchases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 11:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <%C6ZD.938$xN2.537@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #246572 |
On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, 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: >>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>> >>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>> but that's another matter. >>>> >>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>> >>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>> >>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >> >> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >> agreement here. > > Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that > you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully > automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background > checks for all gun purchases. Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think your right to arms is unlimited. Well, you're wrong - the right is not unlimited. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 12:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2%6ZD.35460$Oc4.26413@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #246574 |
On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: > On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, 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: >>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>> >>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>> >>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>> >>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>> >>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>> agreement here. >> >> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >> checks for all gun purchases. > > Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning > you think your right to arms is unlimited. Well, you're > wrong - the right is not unlimited. Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal background checks for all gun purchases. Must I now add your name to the list of functional illiterates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9kdlpFhpdU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246577 |
On 1/8/19 12:38 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, 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: >>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>>> >>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>>> >>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >>>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>>> >>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>>> agreement here. >>> >>> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >>> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >>> checks for all gun purchases. >> >> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think >> your right to arms is unlimited. Well, you're wrong - the right is >> not unlimited. > > Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal > background checks for all gun purchases. Would you remain opposed even if research showed such laws bring more benefit than harm? > Must I now add your > name to the list of functional illiterates? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web