Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #452860 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-31 05:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-04 23:17 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 703 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Slaughtering concert goers. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-31 05:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Snit's family hates him" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 05:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 12:06 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 10:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 15:49 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-31 20:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 17:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit took things out of COLA and called the cops <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 16:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 19:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 21:38 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 09:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 08:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 22:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 01:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 11:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-05-31 19:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-05-31 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 03:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 03:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 05:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 08:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 11:59 -0700
Re: â Snowflake â Slaughtering concert goers. â Snowflake â Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 14:07 -0500
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 18:50 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:00 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:29 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:47 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:18 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 09:14 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:48 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:28 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:14 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 00:18 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 00:18 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:20 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:03 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:26 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:54 +0000
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: â Snowflake â ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? â Snowflake â Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-02 08:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit says unsupported claims are lies <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 12:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 12:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit says unsupported claims are lies <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 12:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 04:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 04:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:12 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 00:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 23:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:14 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 20:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:19 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 21:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit wants to repeal the 2A <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 10:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:08 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:35 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:35 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:10 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 01:39 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:30 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:01 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:28 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:27 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:38 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:53 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 04:54 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 05:06 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:54 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:33 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:11 -0700
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:51 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 07:47 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 08:23 -0700
The Second Amendment doesn't address recreational guns. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 08:45 -0700
Re: The Second Amendment doesn't address recreational guns. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:05 -0700
Re: The Second Amendment doesn't address recreational guns. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:17 -0700
Re: The Second Amendment doesn't address recreational guns. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:36 -0700
Re: The Second Amendment doesn't address recreational guns. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:42 -0700
Re: The Second Amendment doesn't address recreational guns. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 11:08 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 08:50 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 11:59 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:25 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:28 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:08 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 23:24 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:12 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:15 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:48 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:32 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 21:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:49 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:49 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:45 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:17 -0700
Permission to breath ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:13 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:53 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 21:30 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 23:33 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:42 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 06:31 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:08 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:58 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Clarity. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-03 08:52 -0700
Re: Clarity. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 09:54 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 13:33 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:46 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:53 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 22:59 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 23:19 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 09:10 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 00:31 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:31 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:12 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:26 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:10 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:54 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 22:19 -0500
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 20:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 00:24 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 05:43 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 10:15 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 10:59 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 07:17 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 00:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 16:07 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:30 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:34 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:50 -0700
"Natural Rights" aren't always wonderful. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 19:02 -0700
Re: "Natural Rights" aren't always wonderful. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 19:14 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 19:17 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:49 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:06 -0700
Depressed Losers, slaughtering consert goers, is "natural" ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 03:52 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 02:18 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 01:41 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:25 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:45 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:16 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 10:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 19:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 00:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:30 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 17:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 15:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-04 23:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:51 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 09:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:51 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 04:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:27 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 19:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 08:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:32 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:17 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:01 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 05:15 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:07 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 21:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 19:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 06:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 05:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 22:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 05:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 20:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:41 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 02:29 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 03:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:38 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 11:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 12:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 07:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 12:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 14:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:21 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 21:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 04:59 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 22:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 05:52 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-10 06:07 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 16:04 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 09:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 09:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 09:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 11:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 05:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 05:52 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 01:39 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 01:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-10 15:46 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 15:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Truth Avoidance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Truth Avoidance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 17:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 22:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 11:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 23:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 09:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 09:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 06:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 13:29 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 11:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit wants to repeal the 2A <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 11:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 17:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit says unsupported claims are lies <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 14:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:12 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:59 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 20:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:58 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:17 -0500
Page 26 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 … 36 Next page →
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb3pl0.bua.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #454070 |
On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> >>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>> teachers! >>>> >>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>> >>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>> >>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in class >>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>> >>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>> bat or a gun? >>>> >>>> >>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you >>> want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>> >> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something > > So self defense only works if you kill something? > > > why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnompoFbpqgU25@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454072 |
On 6/5/18 3:50 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>> >>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>> class >>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>> >>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you >>>> want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>> >>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >> >> So self defense only works if you kill something? >> >> >> > why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong There are cases where you need to defend yourself. But notice how Scout jumps repeatedly to those very rare cases and ignores the bigger picture. He is twisting context and meaning. -- 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 | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb3ud3.84b.17.14@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #454100 |
On 2018-06-05 5:05 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/5/18 3:50 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>> class >>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say >>>>> you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>>> >>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>> >>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>> >>> >>> >> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong > > There are cases where you need to defend yourself. But notice how Scout > jumps repeatedly to those very rare cases and ignores the bigger > picture. He is twisting context and meaning. > i don't wanna talk about him i thought this was about something else
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnonm2FbpqgU27@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454105 |
On 6/5/18 5:11 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-05 5:05 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/5/18 3:50 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>> good solution. >>>>>> >>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>> >>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong >> >> There are cases where you need to defend yourself. But notice how >> Scout jumps repeatedly to those very rare cases and ignores the bigger >> picture. He is twisting context and meaning. >> > i don't wanna talk about him i thought this was about something else The whole debate has gone on so long and with so many trying to twist things and change topics who knows what any of it is about any more. I will just stick with my view unless I see good contrary evidence. * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action". * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. * I back evidence-based policies. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf7igj$vlv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454109 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:fnonm2FbpqgU27@mid.individual.net...
> On 6/5/18 5:11 PM, % wrote:
>> On 2018-06-05 5:05 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 6/5/18 3:50 PM, % wrote:
>>>> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net...
>>>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net,
>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit
>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying
>>>>>>>>>>> teachers!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in
>>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped,
>>>>>>>> would you rather have a baseball
>>>>>>>> bat or a gun?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will
>>>>>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you
>>>>>>> want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is
>>>>>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something
>>>>>
>>>>> So self defense only works if you kill something?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong
>>>
>>> There are cases where you need to defend yourself. But notice how Scout
>>> jumps repeatedly to those very rare cases and ignores the bigger
>>> picture. He is twisting context and meaning.
>>>
>> i don't wanna talk about him i thought this was about something else
>
> The whole debate has gone on so long and with so many trying to twist
> things and change topics who knows what any of it is about any more.
>
> I will just stick with my view unless I see good contrary evidence.
stand by for contrary evidence.....again.
> * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much
> exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed
> action".
"At the time of the founding, as now, to âbearâ meant to âcarry.â See
Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English
Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter
Oxford). When used with âarms,â however, the term has a meaning that refers
to carrying for a particular purposeâconfrontation. In Muscarello v. United
States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of
âcarries a firearmâ in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote
that â[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitutionâs Second
Amendment âĶ indicate[s]: âwear, bear, or carry âĶ upon the person or in the
clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose âĶ of being armed and ready for
offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.â â
Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Blackâs Law Dictionary 214 (6th
ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural
meaning of âbear arms.â Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the
weapon is for the purpose of âoffensive or defensive action,â it in no way
connotes participation in a structured military organization."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
>
> * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of
> the country which were never, as far as I can find,
> challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it
> a hard sale to say they were against the second
> amendment.
I have not seen any law in existence which impacted either the keeping of
arms or the bearing of arms by the federal government until into the 20th
Century.
It should be noted that state and local laws of this nature may have existed
but since BOR was a restraint on the federal government rather than state or
local governments, and specifically the 2nd Amendment was not such a
restraint until the 14th Amendment incorporation in McDonald vs. City of
Chicago.
As such the existence of such laws in lower levels of government would not
support any contention that such laws were permissible under the 2nd
Amendment had it applied to such levels of government. I would note that
similar violations of the other portions of the BOR occurred and was a
fundamental reason for the ratification of the 14th Amendment to apply the
protection of such rights to all levels of government once such protection
was incorporated by SCOTUS as was done with the 2nd in 2010.
Therefore this argument proves nothing about the extent of the protections
afforded by the 2nd Amendment and what would have been seen as permissible
or objectionable if done by the federal government in the time period around
the time of ratification.
But again let's defer to the relevant experts.
" We now address how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately
after its ratification through the end of the 19th century. Before
proceeding, however, we take issue with Justice Stevensâ equating of these
sources with postenactment legislative history, a comparison that betrays a
fundamental misunderstanding of a courtâs interpretive task. See post, at
27, n. 28. âLegislative history,â of course, refers to the pre-enactment
statements of those who drafted or voted for a law; it is considered
persuasive by some, not because they reflect the general understanding of
the disputed terms, but because the legislators who heard or read those
statements presumably voted with that understanding. Ibid. âPostenactment
legislative history,â ibid., a deprecatory contradiction in terms, refers to
statements of those who drafted or voted for the law that are made after its
enactment and hence could have had no effect on the congressional vote. It
most certainly does not refer to the examination of a variety of legal and
other sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the
period after its enactment or ratification. That sort of inquiry is a
critical tool of constitutional interpretation. As we will show, virtually
all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment
interpreted the amendment as we do."
(Ibid)
>
> * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported
> the states rights view.
I suspect that's because of your bias towards looking at scholars who say
what you want to hear.
But let's see what the scholars who matter think.
" The 19th-century cases that interpreted the Second Amendment universally
support an individual right unconnected to militia service. In Houston v.
Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 24 (1820), this Court held that States have concurrent
power over the militia, at least where not pre-empted by Congress. Agreeing
in dissent that States could âorganize, discipline, and armâ the militia in
the absence of conflicting federal regulation, Justice Story said that the
Second Amendment âmay not, perhaps, be thought to have any important bearing
on this point. If it have, it confirms and illustrates, rather than impugns
the reasoning already suggested.â Id., at 51â53. Of course, if the Amendment
simply âprotect[ed] the right of the people of each of the several States to
maintain a well-regulated militia,â post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting), it
would have enormous and obvious bearing on the point. But the Court and
Story derived the Statesâ power over the militia from the nonexclusive
nature of federal power, not from the Second Amendment , whose preamble
merely âconfirms and illustratesâ the importance of the militia. Even
clearer was Justice Baldwin. In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v.
Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a
circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue
for his conclusion that a citizen has âa right to carry arms in defence of
his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such
force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety
of either.â
Many early 19th-century state cases indicated that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to militia service,
though subject to certain restrictions. A Virginia case in 1824 holding that
the Constitution did not extend to free blacks explained that ânumerous
restrictions imposed on [blacks] in our Statute Book, many of which are
inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, both of this
State and of the United States as respects the free whites, demonstrate,
that, here, those instruments have not been considered to extend equally to
both classes of our population. We will only instance the restriction upon
the migration of free blacks into this State, and upon their right to bear
arms.â Aldridge v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. Cas. 447, 449 (Gen. Ct.). The claim
was obviously not that blacks were prevented from carrying guns in the
militia.21 See also Waters v. State, 1Gill 302, 309 (Md. 1843) (because free
blacks were treated as a âdangerous population,â âlaws have been passed to
prevent their migration into this State; to make it unlawful for them to
bear arms; to guard even their religious assemblages with peculiar
watchfulnessâ). An 1829 decision by the Supreme Court of Michigan said: âThe
constitution of the United States also grants to the citizen the right to
keep and bear arms. But the grant of this privilege cannot be construed into
the right in him who keeps a gun to destroy his neighbor. No rights are
intended to be granted by the constitution for an unlawful or unjustifiable
purpose.â United States v. Sheldon, in 5 Transactions of the Supreme Court
of the Territory of Michigan 337, 346 (W. Blume ed. 1940) (hereinafter
Blume). It is not possible to read this as discussing anything other than an
individual right unconnected to militia service. If it did have to do with
militia service, the limitation upon it would not be any âunlawful or
unjustifiable purpose,â but any nonmilitary purpose whatsoever.
In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court
construed the Second Amendment as protecting the ânatural right of
self-defenceâ and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the
Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in
continuity with the English right:
âThe right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not
militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such
merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or
broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end
to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so
vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any
law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which
contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled
under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors,
re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty
by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna
Charta!â
Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana
Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: âThis is
the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is
calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if
necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages
and unmanly assassinations.â
Those who believe that the Second Amendment preserves only a
militia-centered right place great reliance on the Tennessee Supreme Courtâs
1840 decision in Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154. The case does not stand for
that broad proposition; in fact, the case does not mention the word
âmilitiaâ at all, except in its quoting of the Second Amendment . Aymette
held that the state constitutional guarantee of the right to âbearâ arms did
not prohibit the banning of concealed weapons. The opinion first recognized
that both the state right and the federal right were descendents of the 1689
English right, but (erroneously, and contrary to virtually all other
authorities) read that right to refer only to âprotect[ion of] the public
libertyâ and âkeep[ing] in awe those in power,â id., at 158. The court then
adopted a sort of middle position, whereby citizens were permitted to carry
arms openly, unconnected with any service in a formal militia, but were
given the right to use them only for the military purpose of banding
together to oppose tyranny. This odd reading of the right is, to be sure,
not the one we adoptâbut it is not petitionersâ reading either. More
importantly, seven years earlier the Tennessee Supreme Court had treated the
state constitutional provision as conferring a right âof all the free
citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence,â Simpson, 5
Yer., at 360; and 21 years later the court held that the âkeepâ portion of
the state constitutional right included the right to personal self-defense:
â[T]he right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms
for all the ordinary purposes, and in all the ordinary modes usual in the
country, and to which arms are adapted, limited by the duties of a good
citizen in times of peace.â Andrews, 50 Tenn., at 178; see also ibid.
(equating state provision with Second Amendment )."
(Ibid)
>
> * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from
> mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun
> laws.
The NRA has no control over our laws. They can not introduce, debate, amend
or even vote on any legislation. They are not an elected representative to
any position in any level of government.
Further I would note that per your own arguments we shouldn't allow the
antigun groups to do so either since they similarly benefit from mass
shootings and terrorism.
>
> * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on
> arms... what one could call "infringements".
Yes, and SCOTUS has been in the process of tearing down these infringements
since DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs City of Chicago.
> * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as
> we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything
> else that is tied to death and injuries.
To what end? To blame an inanimate object for the actions of the person
using it?
> * I back evidence-based policies.
Then when are you going to start doing so:?
I would note that all your issues, arguments, and questions were asked and
addressed by SCOTUS. I suggest you read their ruling which will provide you
with cites, references and sources for further research and proof of what
you're asking to see as far as the application of the 2nd Amendment to the
individual right to keep and bear arms for non-military uses.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
You asked for good contrary evidence. I've now supplied it. Until you can
refute the information contained with the ruling by SCOTUS I will consider
your views refuted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnp3oaFbpqgU40@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454151 |
On 6/5/18 7:42 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> The whole debate has gone on so long and with so many trying to twist >> things and change topics who knows what any of it is about any more. >> >> I will just stick with my view unless I see good contrary evidence. > > stand by for contrary evidence.....again. > >> * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much >>  exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed >>  action". > > "At the time of the founding, as now, to âbearâ meant to âcarry.â See > Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English > Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) > (hereinafter Oxford). When used with âarms,â however, the term has a > meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purposeâconfrontation. > In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of > analyzing the meaning of âcarries a firearmâ in a federal criminal > statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that â[s]urely a most familiar meaning > is, as the Constitutionâs Second Amendment âĶ indicate[s]: âwear, bear, > or carry âĶ upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the > purpose âĶ of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in > a case of conflict with another person.â â Id., at 143 (dissenting > opinion) (quoting Blackâs Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think > that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of âbear > arms.â Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is > for the purpose of âoffensive or defensive action,â it in no way > connotes participation in a structured military organization." This is looking at each word, not the phrase. As you have been shown that is not how "bear arms" was used. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html ----- A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- In short: you are playing word games. People have accused me of that, saying I should look at the phrase "keep and bear arms"... and I am open to people showing how that phrase was used. > DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) > 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed. We have covered this as well: I do not deny that in 2008 there was a controversial 5:4 decision which FOR THE FIRST TIME went with that view. First time. The fact you have NO case law before 2008 to back your view supports my view that this is a new interpretation. It is often called a "landmark decision" because of being the first to offer this interpretation. Most scholars do NOT see this as the historic meaning of the second amendment. 1) https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2792&context=lawreview | First, the second amendment was passed as an | assurance to the states that they would have the | right to maintain their own militias. Such | militias were to be used as the centerpiece of the | nation's military power, as an alternative to a | large standing army, as a tool for the states to | ensure public order, and as a means for the states | to defend against the encroachment of federal | power. | | Second, the second amendment does not operate as a | restraint on the states. It acts as a restraint on the | federal government. | | Third, there is no substantial historical evidence for | the claim that the second amendment guarantees an | individual right to have arms for any purpose other | than participation in a state-regulated militia. | | Fourth, as long as federal gun laws do not adversely | affect the organized state militias, these laws should | encounter no second amendment problems. | | Fifth, because the state militias no longer rely on | the use of privately-owned firearms by their active | members, federal regulation of private gun ownership | poses no threat to state militias, and therefore | raises no constitutional issue. This is demonstrated | by the remarkable unanimity of federal and state | courts in upholding the constitutional validity of | firearms laws against second amendment challenges. 2) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105369 | This article argues that the second amendment was | initially proposed and passed in response to some | antifederalist fears of a standing army. The | thrust of the Amendment was to prevent the | national government from disarming the state | militias. Similarly, the Amendment allowed the | states to arm their own militias if Congress | failed to do so under its Article I, Section 8 | powers. The article notes that Madison and other | Federalists who wrote the Second Amendment were | fully aware of demands for an amendment to protect | an individual's right to own weapons, and that the | framers of the Second Amendment emphatically | rejected this concept. 3) https://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Research/Reviews/rwstand.htm | The contemporary meaning of the Second Amendment | is the same as it was at the time of its adoption. | The federal government may regulate the National | Guard, but may not disarm it against the will of | state legislatures. Nothing in the Second | Amendment, however, precludes Congress or the | states from requiring licensing and registration | of firearms; in fact, there is nothing to stop an | outright congressional ban on private ownership of | all handguns and all rifles. 4) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114 | Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason | to believe that, in significant part, James | Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his | constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, | that Congress could not use its newly-acquired | powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by | disarming the militia, on which the South relied | for slave control. >> * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of >>  the country which were never, as far as I can find, >>  challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it >>  a hard sale to say they were against the second >>  amendment. > > I have not seen any law in existence which impacted either the keeping > of arms or the bearing of arms by the federal government until into the > 20th Century. We have, even now, MANY laws which restrict people from owning arms. I am not, for example, allowed to have a dirty bomb or ricin, and there are many restrictions on dynamite. There was also the 1934 National Firearms Act which had many limits on guns, specifically. It did have some provisions challenged but overall was accepted. In 1938 there was the Federal Firearms Act which required licenses for many who made, imported, or sold guns. It also infringed on the right to own ANY gun for convicted felons. This was repealed in 1968 but many of the provisions STILL stand. For example, convicted felons still cannot own guns. > It should be noted that state and local laws of this nature may have > existed but since BOR was a restraint on the federal government rather > than state or local governments, and specifically the 2nd Amendment was > not such a restraint until the 14th Amendment incorporation in McDonald > vs. City of Chicago. > As such the existence of such laws in lower levels of government would > not support any contention that such laws were permissible under the 2nd > Amendment had it applied to such levels of government. I would note that > similar violations of the other portions of the BOR occurred and was a > fundamental reason for the ratification of the 14th Amendment to apply > the protection of such rights to all levels of government once such > protection was incorporated by SCOTUS as was done with the 2nd in 2010. > > Therefore this argument proves nothing about the extent of the > protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment and what would have been seen > as permissible or objectionable if done by the federal government in the > time period around the time of ratification. > > > But again let's defer to the relevant experts. > > " We now address how the Second Amendment was interpreted from > immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century. > Before proceeding, however, we take issue with Justice Stevensâ equating > of these sources with postenactment legislative history, a comparison > that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of a courtâs interpretive > task. See post, at 27, n. 28. âLegislative history,â of course, refers > to the pre-enactment statements of those who drafted or voted for a law; > it is considered persuasive by some, not because they reflect the > general understanding of the disputed terms, but because the legislators > who heard or read those statements presumably voted with that > understanding. Ibid. âPostenactment legislative history,â ibid., a > deprecatory contradiction in terms, refers to statements of those who > drafted or voted for the law that are made after its enactment and hence > could have had no effect on the congressional vote. It most certainly > does not refer to the examination of a variety of legal and other > sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the > period after its enactment or ratification. That sort of inquiry is a > critical tool of constitutional interpretation. As we will show, > virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after > its enactment interpreted the amendment as we do." > (Ibid) The controversial 5:4 decision was already discussed -- hence why you did not provide a source for your quote. You are playing games. >> * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported >>  the states rights view. > > I suspect that's because of your bias towards looking at scholars who > say what you want to hear. I have repeatedly been clear of how I did my search and have welcomed you to do the same search: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> > But let's see what the scholars who matter think. You left the topic behind and went from scholars to court cases, which are NOT the same thing. Yes, you can say the lawyers are scholars but that is more word play on your part. ... >> * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from >>  mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun >>  laws. > > The NRA has no control over our laws. This has been shown to be false repeatedly. And note how your "rebuttal" is merely to push straw men and play more word games. > They can not introduce, debate, > amend or even vote on any legislation. They are not an elected > representative to any position in any level of government. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied any of that. You are, as noted, playing word games. This shows you know you have no counter. Fair enough. > Further I would note that per your own arguments we shouldn't allow the > antigun groups to do so either since they similarly benefit from mass > shootings and terrorism. I do not want ANY group to be paying off politicians, directly or not: this includes the NRA, corporations, Planned Parenthood, unions, or ANYONE else. >> * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on >>  arms... what one could call "infringements". > > Yes, and SCOTUS has been in the process of tearing down these > infringements since DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs City of Chicago. When do you think felons will lose such infringements? When do you think they should? >> * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as >>  we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything >>  else that is tied to death and injuries. > > To what end? To blame an inanimate object for the actions of the person > using it? To what end: the same end as we do with cars and roads and pools and food and air and water and pretty much everything else: to reduce harm and death. This seems so self-evidence that it is hard to believe you are doing anything else other than playing more of your games. >> * I back evidence-based policies. > > Then when are you going to start doing so:? Loaded question. This is another example of your use of logical fallacies and game play. > I would note that all your issues, arguments, and questions were asked > and addressed by SCOTUS. I suggest you read their ruling which will > provide you with cites, references and sources for further research and > proof of what you're asking to see as far as the application of the 2nd > Amendment to the individual right to keep and bear arms for non-military > uses. > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html > > You asked for good contrary evidence. I've now supplied it. Until you > can refute the information contained with the ruling by SCOTUS I will > consider your views refuted. I easily refute your comments. Not even a challenge. But, it is easy to predict, you will STILL claim my views are "refuted" no matter how trivial it was to show your claims to be so heavily tied to word games and logical fallacies and ignorance. My favorite is your denial of federal laws which restrict "bearing arms" -- even if we go with the new definition of this, felons generally cannot legally own or use guns. This is, of course, an infringement and one that did not exist at the start of the country and is a federal law. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf7f00$g93$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454100 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnompoFbpqgU25@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:50 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>> class >>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you >>>>> want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is likely >>>>> to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>>> >>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>> >>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>> >>> >>> >> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong > > There are cases where you need to defend yourself. But notice how Scout > jumps repeatedly to those very rare cases and ignores the bigger picture. > He is twisting context and meaning. Violent crime is rare? Oh, well in that case we don't need gun control then, since according to you violent crime is so rare that we need not concern ourselves with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnoue6FbpqgU39@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454146 |
On 6/5/18 6:46 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnompoFbpqgU25@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:50 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>> good solution. >>>>>> >>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>> >>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong >> >> There are cases where you need to defend yourself. But notice how >> Scout jumps repeatedly to those very rare cases and ignores the bigger >> picture. He is twisting context and meaning. > > Violent crime is rare? It is less common than instances of NOT having violent crime. Absolutely. And the numbers are going down. Does not mean the numbers are not concerning, but in looking at the big picture picking just times when a violent crime is happening to someone is very clearly cherry picking to push your agenda. > Oh, well in that case we don't need gun control then, since according to > you violent crime is so rare that we need not concern ourselves with it. Another fine example of lying about my views... and of pushing an absurd idea that crime is the only health issue around guns. I would prefer if you would be honest. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf7f00$g93$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454072 |
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bb3pl0.bua.17.3@news.alt.net... > On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>> >>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>> >>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>> class >>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>> >>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you want >>>> a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is likely to >>>> lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>> >>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >> >> So self defense only works if you kill something? >> >> >> > why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong Apparently, according to you, the victims of violent crime deserve what happened to them because according to you they did something wrong. Meanwhile, I note that, in general, the victims of violent crime are guilty of one thing only being alive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnouaiFrfodU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454145 |
On 6/5/18 6:45 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:bb3pl0.bua.17.3@news.alt.net... >> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>> class >>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say >>>>> you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>>> >>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>> >>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>> >>> >>> >> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong > > Apparently, according to you, the victims of violent crime deserve what > happened to them because according to you they did something wrong. You recently asked for examples of where you lie about what I say. GREAT EXAMPLE! Thanks, I suppose. > Meanwhile, I note that, in general, the victims of violent crime are > guilty of one thing only being alive. Why do you associate guilt with that? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf7ksc$acu$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454149 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnouaiFrfodU2@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 6:45 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:bb3pl0.bua.17.3@news.alt.net... >>> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>>>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you >>>>>> want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>>>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>>>> >>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>> >>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong >> >> Apparently, according to you, the victims of violent crime deserve what >> happened to them because according to you they did something wrong. > > You recently asked for examples of where you lie about what I say. GREAT > EXAMPLE! Please note that the program "Snit" now claims to also be the poster "%"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnp4vpFbpqgU46@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454162 |
On 6/5/18 8:36 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnouaiFrfodU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 6:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:bb3pl0.bua.17.3@news.alt.net... >>>> On 2018-06-05 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS >>>>>>>>> in class >>>>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are >>>>>>>> trapped, would you rather have a baseball >>>>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>>> good solution. >>>>>>> >>>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>>> >>>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> why do you need to defend yourself what have you done wrong >>> >>> Apparently, according to you, the victims of violent crime deserve >>> what happened to them because according to you they did something wrong. >> >> You recently asked for examples of where you lie about what I say. >> GREAT EXAMPLE! > > Please note that the program "Snit" now claims to also be the poster "%" Ah, my mistake: you lied about someone else's comments in addition to lying about mine. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454070 |
On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> >>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>> teachers! >>>> >>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>> >>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>> >>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in class >>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>> >>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>> bat or a gun? >>>> >>>> >>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you >>> want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>> >> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something > > So self defense only works if you kill something? See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over that of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it (your view was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and not legislatures). Weird. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pf7igk$vlv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454098 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>> >>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>> >>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>> class >>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>> >>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it will >>>> surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say you want >>>> a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is likely to >>>> lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>> >>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >> >> So self defense only works if you kill something? > > See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. Do what? Accept what he said at face value? Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? >Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over that of >the scholars and the common historic understanding of it (your view was not >put into law until 2008, and then by judges and not legislatures). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd protects an individual right. After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the 2nd Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have standing to use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that the 2nd does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in 1939...that nearly SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an 'individual interpretation' was adopted. No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does apply to individuals. Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would indicate your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The individual interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the Court often stated that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th Amendment) or that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been incorporated by SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than saying it never applied to individuals until 2008. "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller (No. 696) Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they supplied???? So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the facts are on your side, because they aren't. I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question of whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that refutes your position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnp3poFbpqgU41@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454152 |
On 6/5/18 7:55 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in >>>>>>> class >>>>>>> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are trapped, >>>>>> would you rather have a baseball >>>>>> bat or a gun? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to say >>>>> you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your "solution" is >>>>> likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a good solution. >>>>> >>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>> >>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >> >> See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. > > Do what? Accept what he said at face value? > > Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? > >> Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over that >> of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it (your view >> was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and not >> legislatures). > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html > > Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd > protects an individual right. > > After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't > Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an > individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the 2nd > Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have standing to > use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that the 2nd > does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in 1939...that nearly > SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an 'individual interpretation' was > adopted. > > No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you > examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller > showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does apply > to individuals. > > Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you > apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would indicate > your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The individual > interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the Court often stated > that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th Amendment) or > that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been incorporated by > SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than saying it never applied > to individuals until 2008. > > "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the > debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and > States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly > enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting > in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for > military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for > service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by > themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." > > 307 U.S. 174 > > United States v. Miller (No. 696) > > > Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep and > bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they supplied???? > > So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the facts > are on your side, because they aren't. > > I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question of > whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that refutes your > position. > > What part of the above do you think has not been beaten to death and refuted? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pffk0k$bop$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454164 |
In news:fnp3poFbpqgU41@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/5/18 7:55 PM, Scout wrote: >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS >>>>>>>> in class rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are >>>>>>> trapped, would you rather have a baseball bat or a gun? >>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>> good solution. >>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>> See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. >> Do what? Accept what he said at face value? >> Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? >>> Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over >>> that of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it >>> (your view was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and >>> not legislatures). >> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html >> Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd >> protects an individual right. >> After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't >> Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an >> individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the 2nd >> Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have standing >> to use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that >> the 2nd does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in 1939...that nearly >> SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an 'individual interpretation' >> was adopted. >> No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you >> examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller >> showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does >> apply to individuals. >> Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you >> apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would >> indicate your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The individual >> interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the Court often >> stated that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th >> Amendment) or that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been >> incorporated by SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than >> saying it never applied to individuals until 2008. >> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the >> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies >> and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show >> plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically >> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of >> citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that >> ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to >> appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common >> use at the time." >> 307 U.S. 174 >> United States v. Miller (No. 696) >> Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep >> and bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they >> supplied???? >> So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the >> facts are on your side, because they aren't. >> I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question of >> whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that refutes >> your position. > What part of the above do you think has not been beaten to death and > refuted? All of it... because you can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo13cpFdgbuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454515 |
On 6/8/18 9:08 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fnp3poFbpqgU41@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/5/18 7:55 PM, Scout wrote: >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>>> teachers! > >>>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 > >>>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. > >>>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS >>>>>>>>> in class rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. > >>>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are >>>>>>>> trapped, would you rather have a baseball bat or a gun? > >>>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>>> good solution. > >>>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something > >>>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? > >>>> See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. > >>> Do what? Accept what he said at face value? > >>> Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? > >>>> Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over >>>> that of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it >>>> (your view was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and >>>> not legislatures). > >>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html > >>> Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd >>> protects an individual right. > >>> After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't >>> Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an >>> individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the 2nd >>> Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have standing >>> to use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that >>> the 2nd does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in 1939...that nearly >>> SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an 'individual interpretation' >>> was adopted. > >>> No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you >>> examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller >>> showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does >>> apply to individuals. > >>> Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you >>> apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would >>> indicate your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The individual >>> interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the Court often >>> stated that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th >>> Amendment) or that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been >>> incorporated by SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than >>> saying it never applied to individuals until 2008. > >>> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the >>> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies >>> and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show >>> plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically >>> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of >>> citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that >>> ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to >>> appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common >>> use at the time." > >>> 307 U.S. 174 > >>> United States v. Miller (No. 696) > >>> Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep >>> and bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they >>> supplied???? > >>> So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the >>> facts are on your side, because they aren't. > >>> I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question of >>> whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that refutes >>> your position. > >> What part of the above do you think has not been beaten to death and >> refuted? > > All of it... because you can't. > > Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pffn1f$phk$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454518 |
In news:fo13cpFdgbuU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/8/18 9:08 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fnp3poFbpqgU41@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/5/18 7:55 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fnomj9FbpqgU24@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 6/5/18 3:45 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:bb3m5g.j3i.17.1@news.alt.net... >>>>>>> On 2018-06-05 2:45 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 1:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:fno5uhFbpqgU8@mid.individual.net, >>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/18 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:11:42 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Even now the NRA is saying schools should have gun-carrying >>>>>>>>>>>> teachers! >>>>>>>>>>> Here's the liberal alternative: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-school-district-gives-teachers-small-baseball-bats-last-resort-n864986 >>>>>>>>>>> That's how dumb the leftists are. >>>>>>>>>> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS >>>>>>>>>> in class rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. >>>>>>>>> If a crazed gunman bursts into the room in which you are >>>>>>>>> trapped, would you rather have a baseball bat or a gun? >>>>>>>> I would rather NOT have more guns in the classroom given how it >>>>>>>> will surely lead to more kids being shot. You can twist that to >>>>>>>> say you want a gun if someone else has one, but when your >>>>>>>> "solution" is likely to lead to more harm than good it is not a >>>>>>>> good solution. >>>>>>> no one needs a gun unless they are going to kill something >>>>>> So self defense only works if you kill something? >>>>> See: another twist from you. You repeatedly do that. >>>> Do what? Accept what he said at face value? >>>> Are you saying he didn't know what he was talking about? >>>>> Then you ask us to accept YOUR view of the second amendment over >>>>> that of the scholars and the common historic understanding of it >>>>> (your view was not put into law until 2008, and then by judges and >>>>> not legislatures). >>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html >>>> Sorry, but as SCOTUS shows the court has consistently held the 2nd >>>> protects an individual right. >>>> After all, if the 2nd didn't apply to individuals...then why wasn't >>>> Miller's defense rejected by SCOTUS since in your interpretation an >>>> individual such as Miller wouldn't have the standing to claim the >>>> 2nd Amendment in his defense. However, not only did Miller have >>>> standing to use the 2nd Amendment the court ruled the case in a manner that >>>> the 2nd does apply to individuals. Miller was decided in >>>> 1939...that nearly SEVEN DECADES before you claim that an >>>> 'individual interpretation' was adopted. >>>> No, sir, you clearly have not researched the issues, nor have you >>>> examined the multitude of cites which the Court provided in Heller >>>> showing a regular and consistent interpretation that the 2nd does >>>> apply to individuals. >>>> Interesting how you wish to assert you know all there is, but you >>>> apparently utterly lack even the minimal knowledge that would >>>> indicate your claim about the Heller case is nonsense. The >>>> individual interpretation has ALWAYS been put into law. Now the >>>> Court often stated that the 2nd didn't apply to the states (prior to the 14th >>>> Amendment) or that the 2nd didn't apply because it hadn't yet been >>>> incorporated by SCOTUS, but that's a far different manner than >>>> saying it never applied to individuals until 2008. >>>> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the >>>> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies >>>> and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show >>>> plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically >>>> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of >>>> citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that >>>> ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to >>>> appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in >>>> common use at the time." >>>> 307 U.S. 174 >>>> United States v. Miller (No. 696) >>>> Clearly the court is stating that individuals have the right to keep >>>> and bear arms, otherwise, how could they appear bearing arms they >>>> supplied???? >>>> So delude yourself if you like, but don't think for a moment the >>>> facts are on your side, because they aren't. >>>> I've provided enough cites to prove that, and now it's a question >>>> of whether you have the honesty to look at the evidence that >>>> refutes your position. >>> What part of the above do you think has not been beaten to death and >>> refuted? >> All of it... because you can't. > Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. > It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in 2008" lie out of the water!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #454522 |
On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> All of it... because you can't. >> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. >> It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. > My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in 2008" lie out of the water! The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS. Remember: * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action". * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. * I back evidence-based policies. All of that is very well supported. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454524 |
In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> All of it... because you can't. >>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best point. >>> It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >> 2008" lie out of the water! > The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time the > new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... Yeah, that's the one!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 26 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 … 36 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web