Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #340960 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-18 17:54 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-22 13:16 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 17:54 -0800
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-19 02:11 +0000
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik tinus61 <tinus61@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 06:59 +0100
Exterminate the Gays! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 04:14 -0800
if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 05:19 -0800
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago tinus61 <tinus61@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 23:22 +0100
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 17:42 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago tinus61 <tinus61@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 00:20 +0100
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:25 -0800
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago tinus61 <tinus61@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-24 14:08 +0100
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 10:24 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 09:35 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 18:39 -0500
Silly myths Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-21 20:22 -0500
Re: Silly myths GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 20:46 -0700
Re: Silly myths Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-22 10:22 -0500
Re: Silly myths GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:32 -0700
Re: Silly myths chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 07:07 -0600
Re: Silly myths GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:33 -0700
Re: Silly myths chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 08:33 -0600
Re: Silly myths vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-01-22 14:43 +0000
Re: Silly myths Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-22 11:59 -0500
Re: Silly myths William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-01-22 23:04 +0000
Re: Silly myths Penny Tration <fedora_the_explora@asia.com> - 2016-01-22 23:24 +0000
Re: Silly myths "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-22 23:28 +0000
Re: Silly myths Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-22 20:21 -0500
Re: Silly myths Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 11:36 -0700
Re: Silly myths Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 09:46 -0500
Re: Silly myths GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:33 -0700
Re: Silly myths JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-23 17:39 -0600
Re: Silly myths William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-01-24 09:52 +0000
Re: Silly myths chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 08:48 -0600
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 14:16 +0100
Ooooh! Look at Adolph junior John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 05:32 -0800
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 07:43 -0600
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-22 13:01 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:35 -0700
I told you so! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:14 -0800
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 09:44 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-23 15:41 +0000
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 11:22 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:36 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 14:26 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-23 15:08 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 16:22 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-23 16:24 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 16:32 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-23 19:04 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 21:02 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:44 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:41 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-24 14:59 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:10 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 16:10 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:16 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 17:22 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:20 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:40 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-23 21:48 +0100
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-23 15:55 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 16:31 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-23 21:50 +0000
Gitcher guns! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-23 18:17 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-01-24 00:31 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-23 20:31 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-01-24 01:48 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-24 07:15 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:46 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-23 19:47 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-24 11:12 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-25 08:13 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:17 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-26 02:47 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-26 09:50 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:55 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-26 09:57 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-26 10:08 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-26 10:44 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-26 11:10 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-26 11:18 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:06 -0800
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:24 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:23 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:23 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-27 16:54 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-28 00:33 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:51 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-27 20:47 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-28 12:26 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-28 12:23 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:21 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-27 19:17 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-28 12:27 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-28 14:47 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-26 23:11 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-26 18:49 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-27 12:12 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-27 08:29 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-28 02:11 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-28 05:38 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-28 06:47 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 14:03 -0800
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-02-01 18:29 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:27 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 14:01 -0800
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:21 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-26 23:10 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:28 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 14:07 -0800
Re: Gitcher guns! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 16:20 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-26 07:05 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-26 10:22 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-26 11:51 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:30 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-27 20:35 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-28 12:29 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 12:12 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-26 13:26 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-26 15:25 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-26 17:26 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-26 17:05 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-26 19:01 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-27 01:26 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-27 12:13 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-27 06:57 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-27 07:59 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-26 19:53 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-26 20:48 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-27 08:27 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 18:15 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:32 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-25 08:21 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-25 19:39 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-26 02:46 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-26 09:50 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-26 13:55 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-26 23:05 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:35 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:33 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-26 10:16 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-26 11:50 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-26 14:17 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-26 23:08 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-26 18:36 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-26 20:25 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-27 07:49 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-27 16:37 +0100
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-27 12:14 -0500
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:37 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:37 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:36 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-01-26 17:20 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-26 13:18 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-26 23:06 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-27 12:48 -0600
Re: Gitcher guns! "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-28 02:12 +0000
Re: Gitcher guns! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:35 -0700
Re: Gitcher guns! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-26 09:49 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 20:56 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-24 11:11 +0000
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-24 07:17 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-23 19:04 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 20:58 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-24 11:15 +0000
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 10:22 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> - 2016-01-24 19:21 +0000
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-24 14:40 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-25 08:00 -0600
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:18 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 17:28 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 16:15 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 11:37 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:47 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 16:11 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-24 17:08 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 09:20 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 09:33 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 10:59 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 11:18 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 12:50 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 11:41 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:24 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 12:03 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 11:39 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:23 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 17:29 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 13:17 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 12:04 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 11:54 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:21 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 18:56 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-26 09:44 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 13:23 -0700
If trolling were genetic it breed out of the "human" race Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-23 18:16 -0500
Re: If trolling were genetic it breed out of the "human" race Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-24 00:22 +0100
Re: If trolling were genetic it breed out of the "human" race GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:49 -0700
Re: If trolling were genetic it breed out of the "human" race Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 16:12 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:44 -0700
I am not interested in what some degenerate like Marti T. van Lin has a say about anything. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:22 -0800
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 08:00 -0600
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-22 09:31 -0500
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:36 -0700
Re: if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out of the human race millions of years ago Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 06:32 -0800
Let us not forget about all those German females with big boobs John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 18:20 -0800
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 18:46 -0800
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 19:06 -0800
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-19 03:28 +0000
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik tinus61 <tinus61@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 23:25 +0100
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-22 00:59 +0000
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:18 -0800
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 06:06 -0800
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-19 08:24 -0500
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-19 13:37 +0000
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik tinus61 <tinus61@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 00:03 +0100
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 18:38 -0500
Re: Don't Knock Moi's Traditional German Volksmusik John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:52 -0800
Don't Knock Moi's Ethnic Volksmusik John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 05:45 -0800
Don't Knock Moi's Ethnic Volksmusik John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 13:16 -0800
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 09:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <b33d7d8c-19d4-4394-ae04-eeceff5a3fb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #341761 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 9:18:27 AM UTC-7, Slimer wrote: > On 2016-01-26 11:10 AM, Ezekiel wrote: > > "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n88431$qfj$1@dont-email.me... > >> On 2016-01-26 10:08 AM, Ezekiel wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Apparently, you _DON'T_ pay attention: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/california-gun-confiscation_n_2717809.html > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> <quote> > >>>>> California Gun Confiscation Program Heralded As Model For Nation > >>>>> > >>>>> California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials > >>>>> confiscate > >>>>> guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. > >>>>> The > >>>>> program, which takes guns away from criminals and the mentally ill, is > >>>>> being > >>>>> heralded as a model for the nation. > >>>>> </quote> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> If they ever do try to "change the playing field", then there will be > >>> something to bitch and complain about. Until then I'm not going to worry > >>> that they're enforcing the existing laws and taking guns from criminals > >>> and > >>> mentally ill people who are "not legally permitted to own them." > >> > >> Except that they DID already change the playing field by denying > >> California's citizens of a right they had since the creation of the > >> Constitution. You SHOULD be bitching, but you aren't. > > > > The right to own a gun isn't (and shouldn't be) unconditional. There's > > nothing wrong with convicted criminals not being allowed to own guns. > > I agree that they forfeit their right to one if the crime is a violent > one. If it's a petty crime, I disagree. I suspect felonies is what he meant. > > Just like the right to vote... if you're a felon then in most states you > > can't vote until after your sentence (and any parole) have been completed or > > you can't vote period in other states. Some drunk who has several DUIs loses > > their license and isn't allowed to drive. > > Logical. > > > I'm a responsible gun owner in one of the toughest states to get a gun. > > Living here I have no problem either getting all the guns I want. I also > > have no problem with someone who's a convicted felon losing their right to > > buy a gun. > > > > It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the > > inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some guy > > down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want him > > to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people should be > > bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. > > The definition for "mentally ill" has to be very clear before such a > thing becomes law It won't matter, someone's gonna bitch anyway, like they always do. And that's fine but that shouldn't stop the drawing of that line. I would much prefer they enforced existing law before passing new legislation (that they also can't afford to enforce) as that's always slippery slope on this topic. When it comes to rights I don't trust the government, from any political leaning, to do anything other than what they have consistently shown a propensity to do, erode Constitutional rights. The way this is being couched all over the internet is that the 2nd amendment is 'up for grabs' and, strangely, many people are actually buying it. Of course, once you look at what the government has done to the money in this country it sorta makes sense, from the government's POV, they'd believe they could pull off taking away guns. Personally, I don't think it'd be as easy. In my opinion if you want to see a situation of 'ISIS x 10,000' right in your own back yard, go for the U.S. guns. I think that's why the standoff in Oregon is lasting the way it is... well, that, and too many people are aware of the government land grabbing issues going on (where their hands aren't always clean).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 12:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8b5d0$8jr$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341775 |
On 01/26/16 10:06, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 9:18:27 AM UTC-7, Slimer wrote: >> On 2016-01-26 11:10 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>> "Slimer"<.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n88431$qfj$1@dont-email.me... >>>> On 2016-01-26 10:08 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apparently, you _DON'T_ pay attention: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/california-gun-confiscation_n_2717809.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>> California Gun Confiscation Program Heralded As Model For Nation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials >>>>>>> confiscate >>>>>>> guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> program, which takes guns away from criminals and the mentally ill, is >>>>>>> being >>>>>>> heralded as a model for the nation. >>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If they ever do try to "change the playing field", then there will be >>>>> something to bitch and complain about. Until then I'm not going to worry >>>>> that they're enforcing the existing laws and taking guns from criminals >>>>> and >>>>> mentally ill people who are "not legally permitted to own them." >>>> >>>> Except that they DID already change the playing field by denying >>>> California's citizens of a right they had since the creation of the >>>> Constitution. You SHOULD be bitching, but you aren't. >>> >>> The right to own a gun isn't (and shouldn't be) unconditional. There's >>> nothing wrong with convicted criminals not being allowed to own guns. >> >> I agree that they forfeit their right to one if the crime is a violent >> one. If it's a petty crime, I disagree. > > I suspect felonies is what he meant. > >>> Just like the right to vote... if you're a felon then in most states you >>> can't vote until after your sentence (and any parole) have been completed or >>> you can't vote period in other states. Some drunk who has several DUIs loses >>> their license and isn't allowed to drive. >> >> Logical. >> >>> I'm a responsible gun owner in one of the toughest states to get a gun. >>> Living here I have no problem either getting all the guns I want. I also >>> have no problem with someone who's a convicted felon losing their right to >>> buy a gun. >>> >>> It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the >>> inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some guy >>> down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want him >>> to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people should be >>> bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. >> >> The definition for "mentally ill" has to be very clear before such a >> thing becomes law > > > It won't matter, someone's gonna bitch anyway, like they always do. And that's fine but that shouldn't stop the drawing of that line. I would much prefer they enforced existing law before passing new legislation (that they also can't afford to enforce) as that's always slippery slope on this topic. When it comes to rights I don't trust the government, from any political leaning, to do anything other than what they have consistently shown a propensity to do, erode Constitutional rights. The way this is being couched all over the internet is that the 2nd amendment is 'up for grabs' and, strangely, many people are actually buying it. Of course, once you look at what the government has done to the money in this country it sorta makes sense, from the government's POV, they'd believe they could pull off taking away guns. Personally, I don't think it'd be as easy. In my opinion if you want to see a situation of 'ISIS x 10,000' right in your own back yard, go for the U.S. guns. I t hink that's why the standoff in Oregon is lasting the way it is... well, that, and too many people are aware of the government land grabbing issues going on (where their hands aren't always clean). > Pretty much spot on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 12:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8b5ar$8jr$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341758 |
On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote: > "Slimer"<.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n88431$qfj$1@dont-email.me... >> On 2016-01-26 10:08 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparently, you _DON'T_ pay attention: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/california-gun-confiscation_n_2717809.html >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <quote> >>>>> California Gun Confiscation Program Heralded As Model For Nation >>>>> >>>>> California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials >>>>> confiscate >>>>> guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. >>>>> The >>>>> program, which takes guns away from criminals and the mentally ill, is >>>>> being >>>>> heralded as a model for the nation. >>>>> </quote> >>>>> >>> >>> If they ever do try to "change the playing field", then there will be >>> something to bitch and complain about. Until then I'm not going to worry >>> that they're enforcing the existing laws and taking guns from criminals >>> and >>> mentally ill people who are "not legally permitted to own them." >> >> Except that they DID already change the playing field by denying >> California's citizens of a right they had since the creation of the >> Constitution. You SHOULD be bitching, but you aren't. > > The right to own a gun isn't (and shouldn't be) unconditional. There's > nothing wrong with convicted criminals not being allowed to own guns. > > Just like the right to vote... if you're a felon then in most states you > can't vote until after your sentence (and any parole) have been completed or > you can't vote period in other states. Some drunk who has several DUIs loses > their license and isn't allowed to drive. > > I'm a responsible gun owner in one of the toughest states to get a gun. > Living here I have no problem either getting all the guns I want. I also > have no problem with someone who's a convicted felon losing their right to > buy a gun. > > It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the > inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some guy > down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want him > to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people should be > bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. > Odd that the constitution makes no mention of any conditions to let you own a gun. It just states that you have the right to bear arms and nothing more. It is the libtards that are slowly redefining the terms. Bottom line is that these libtards are nothing more than communists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 15:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8b8pk$tae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341912 |
"GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:n8b5ar$8jr$7@dont-email.me... > On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote: >> >> It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the >> inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some >> guy >> down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want >> him >> to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people should >> be >> bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. >> > Odd that the constitution makes no mention of any conditions to let you > own a gun. It just states that you have the right to bear arms and > nothing more. It is the libtards that are slowly redefining the terms. > Bottom line is that these libtards are nothing more than communists. > The entire Bill of Rights is terse and simply worded. The authors didn't go into detail on any of the amendments. Along these lines, the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting you from exercising whatever religion you want. Yet, you can't decide that your religion allows you to walk down 5th Avenue completely naked. Some radical Muslim can't decide that his religion lets him rape women or kill non-believing infidels.. There are sensible limits on religion even though the 1st amendment makes no mention of any conditions to limit how you practice your religion. Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a movie theater. Most everything has reasonable limits and conditions attached. The same applies to the 2nd amendment. That's how the SCOTUS has ruled in the past. -- And why does Zeke think that taking Rex's name and converting to "Rexxie"would be an impossible act for someone other than "Rex"? Is Zeke stupid, or a kook? Anyway, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that that page is yet another faked frame-up job intended to further Microsoft's "Evangelism is War" goals... So who's the k00k? Obviously, a person that would go to such trouble to try to appropriate someone else's persona, post foulness or craziness as if it were from that person, and then point everybody to that manufactured evidence. The ignorant Chris Ahlstrom kook. Far too dumb and stupid to recognize the facts right in front of his face. Feb 24, 2014 Message-ID: <legq8a$32v$2@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 21:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <ghdkieot983.q@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #341926 |
Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: > > "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message > news:n8b5ar$8jr$7@dont-email.me... >> On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote: >>> >>> It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the >>> inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some >>> guy >>> down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want >>> him >>> to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people should >>> be >>> bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. >>> >> Odd that the constitution makes no mention of any conditions to let you >> own a gun. It just states that you have the right to bear arms and >> nothing more. It is the libtards that are slowly redefining the terms. >> Bottom line is that these libtards are nothing more than communists. >> > > The entire Bill of Rights is terse and simply worded. The authors didn't go > into detail on any of the amendments. > > Along these lines, the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law > prohibiting you from exercising whatever religion you want. Yet, you can't > decide that your religion allows you to walk down 5th Avenue completely > naked. Some radical Muslim can't decide that his religion lets him rape > women or kill non-believing infidels.. > > There are sensible limits on religion even though the 1st amendment makes no > mention of any conditions to limit how you practice your religion. Freedom > of speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a movie theater. > > Most everything has reasonable limits and conditions attached. The same > applies to the 2nd amendment. That's how the SCOTUS has ruled in the past. > SCOTUS is wrong. Local ordinances curtailing offensive expressions of religion or speech are not inconsistent with the First Amendment, since those restrictions are not the result of laws enacted by Congress. The Second Amendment does not suffer the same limited scope as the First Amendment -- namely, the "Congress shall make no law abridging..." scope -- and therefore any law enacted by any governmental body that restricts the right to bear arms of any kind is unconstitutional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 16:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8be4t$lp1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341934 |
"owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote in message
news:ghdkieot983.q@rooftop.invalid...
> Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message
>> news:n8b5ar$8jr$7@dont-email.me...
>>> On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the
>>>> inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some
>>>> guy
>>>> down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want
>>>> him
>>>> to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people
>>>> should
>>>> be
>>>> bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns.
>>>>
>>> Odd that the constitution makes no mention of any conditions to let you
>>> own a gun. It just states that you have the right to bear arms and
>>> nothing more. It is the libtards that are slowly redefining the terms.
>>> Bottom line is that these libtards are nothing more than communists.
>>>
>>
>> The entire Bill of Rights is terse and simply worded. The authors didn't
>> go
>> into detail on any of the amendments.
>>
>> Along these lines, the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law
>> prohibiting you from exercising whatever religion you want. Yet, you
>> can't
>> decide that your religion allows you to walk down 5th Avenue completely
>> naked. Some radical Muslim can't decide that his religion lets him rape
>> women or kill non-believing infidels..
>>
>> There are sensible limits on religion even though the 1st amendment makes
>> no
>> mention of any conditions to limit how you practice your religion.
>> Freedom
>> of speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a movie theater.
>>
>> Most everything has reasonable limits and conditions attached. The same
>> applies to the 2nd amendment. That's how the SCOTUS has ruled in the
>> past.
>>
>
> SCOTUS is wrong.
>
Good luck in convincing them that they're wrong.
> Local ordinances curtailing offensive expressions of religion or
> speech are not inconsistent with the First Amendment, since those
> restrictions are not the result of laws enacted by Congress.
>
The point is that even "free speech" isn't without it's limitations.
> The Second Amendment does not suffer the same limited scope as the First
> Amendment -- namely, the "Congress shall make no law abridging..." scope
>
Not all that different from the 1st ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The "Congress shall make no law" part is there but the constitutional
freedom of "free exercise" your religion of choice comes with restrictions.
> -- and therefore any law enacted by any governmental body that
> restricts the right to bear arms of any kind is unconstitutional.
Yet there are laws that prohibit people from owning a sawed off shotgun, or
a bazooka, or a 20mm hydraulically operated, six-barrel, air-cooled,
electrically fired, rotary cannon like the M61. There are some pretty cool
guns that I wouldn't mind owning but it's unlikely to happen because of
laws.
<wikipedia>
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 wrote that the right to bear
arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and
regulations and subsequently federal court rulings have upheld existing gun
prohibitions and regulations.
Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, has
stated that the individual rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.
Strossen said "it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other
right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always
allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict
scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of
compelling importance."
</wikipedia>
--
"Are you stupid enough to do online banking with a mobile phone?"
Crabbit Bampot
<SXUys.17958$KD4.7694@fe08.iad>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 00:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <gmcnnvjd983.akfi@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #341939 |
Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: > > "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote in message > news:ghdkieot983.q@rooftop.invalid... >> Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >>> >>> "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message >>> news:n8b5ar$8jr$7@dont-email.me... >>>> On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the >>>>> inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some >>>>> guy >>>>> down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want >>>>> him >>>>> to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people >>>>> should >>>>> be >>>>> bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. >>>>> >>>> Odd that the constitution makes no mention of any conditions to let you >>>> own a gun. It just states that you have the right to bear arms and >>>> nothing more. It is the libtards that are slowly redefining the terms. >>>> Bottom line is that these libtards are nothing more than communists. >>>> >>> >>> The entire Bill of Rights is terse and simply worded. The authors didn't >>> go >>> into detail on any of the amendments. >>> >>> Along these lines, the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law >>> prohibiting you from exercising whatever religion you want. Yet, you >>> can't >>> decide that your religion allows you to walk down 5th Avenue completely >>> naked. Some radical Muslim can't decide that his religion lets him rape >>> women or kill non-believing infidels.. >>> >>> There are sensible limits on religion even though the 1st amendment makes >>> no >>> mention of any conditions to limit how you practice your religion. >>> Freedom >>> of speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a movie theater. >>> >>> Most everything has reasonable limits and conditions attached. The same >>> applies to the 2nd amendment. That's how the SCOTUS has ruled in the >>> past. >>> >> >> SCOTUS is wrong. >> > Good luck in convincing them that they're wrong. > The fact that I can't convince them they're wrong does not make them any less wrong. >> Local ordinances curtailing offensive expressions of religion or >> speech are not inconsistent with the First Amendment, since those >> restrictions are not the result of laws enacted by Congress. >> > The point is that even "free speech" isn't without it's limitations. > Right. It is protected only from Congress enacting laws against it. Unlike the right to bear arms, which is simply protected. Period. > >> The Second Amendment does not suffer the same limited scope as the First >> Amendment -- namely, the "Congress shall make no law abridging..." scope >> > Not all that different from the 1st ammendment: > > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." > > The "Congress shall make no law" part is there but the constitutional > freedom of "free exercise" your religion of choice comes with restrictions. > That "Congress shall make no law" part *is* the restriction. > >> -- and therefore any law enacted by any governmental body that >> restricts the right to bear arms of any kind is unconstitutional. > > Yet there are laws that prohibit people from owning a sawed off shotgun, or > a bazooka, or a 20mm hydraulically operated, six-barrel, air-cooled, > electrically fired, rotary cannon like the M61. And they are unconstitutional. > There are some pretty cool > guns that I wouldn't mind owning but it's unlikely to happen because of > laws. > Jump through the ATF hoops, live in the right state, and have enough money to pay the exhorbitant prices, and you can get about anything you want legally. Without the unconstitutional laws, everybody would be able to. Paul Allen has a personal Panzer, yet funnels money to anti- gun legislation activists. > <wikipedia> > Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 wrote that the right to bear > arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and > regulations and subsequently federal court rulings have upheld existing gun > prohibitions and regulations. > He is wrong. > Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, has > stated that the individual rights model must yield to reasonable regulation. > Strossen said "it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other > right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always > allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict > scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of > compelling importance." > </wikipedia> > She is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 20:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8egdi$5jl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341944 |
"owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote in message news:gmcnnvjd983.akfi@rooftop.invalid... > Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >> >> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote in message >> news:ghdkieot983.q@rooftop.invalid... >>> Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message >>>> news:n8b5ar$8jr$7@dont-email.me... >>>>> On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Most everything has reasonable limits and conditions attached. The same >>>> applies to the 2nd amendment. That's how the SCOTUS has ruled in the >>>> past. >>>> >>> >>> SCOTUS is wrong. >>> >> Good luck in convincing them that they're wrong. >> > > The fact that I can't convince them they're wrong does not make > them any less wrong. > >> >> Yet there are laws that prohibit people from owning a sawed off shotgun, >> or >> a bazooka, or a 20mm hydraulically operated, six-barrel, air-cooled, >> electrically fired, rotary cannon like the M61. > > And they are unconstitutional. > >> There are some pretty cool >> guns that I wouldn't mind owning but it's unlikely to happen because of >> laws. >> > > Jump through the ATF hoops, live in the right state, and have enough > money to pay the exhorbitant prices, and you can get about anything you > want legally. Without the unconstitutional laws, everybody would be > able to. Paul Allen has a personal Panzer, yet funnels money to anti- > gun legislation activists. > >> <wikipedia> >> Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 wrote that the right to bear >> arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and >> regulations and subsequently federal court rulings have upheld existing >> gun >> prohibitions and regulations. >> > > He is wrong. > I see it this way. There are rules in chess, rules in baseball and you gotta have some sort of rules in the game of life. If the rule is that "criminals and mentally ill" people don't get to own weapons and 'normal people' don't get to own cruise missiles then I'm okay with a few reasonable rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 20:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8brqs$4t4$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341939 |
On 1/27/2016 4:54 PM, Ezekiel wrote: > The point is that even "free speech" isn't without it's limitations. A dumbass I know drove around with guns in his front seat. He got pulled over in NY state (for speeding), didn't even bother to hide them, and the cop nailed him. As I recall, he spent 2 weeks in jail, a year on probation, and I'm pretty sure a felony gun possession on his record. The moron later whined to me "But it's a free country!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 12:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8dpsb$j7r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341952 |
On 01/27/16 18:47, DFS wrote: > On 1/27/2016 4:54 PM, Ezekiel wrote: > >> The point is that even "free speech" isn't without it's limitations. > > > A dumbass I know drove around with guns in his front seat. He > got pulled over in NY state (for speeding), didn't even bother to hide > them, and the cop nailed him. As I recall, he spent 2 weeks in jail, a > year on probation, and I'm pretty sure a felony gun possession on his > record. > > The moron later whined to me "But it's a free country!" > > In NY or anywhere else this is called a shakedown for his money. Sort of like the old mobster days going into a business and saying "Pay for protection and you won't get hurt, otherwise you'll be wearing concrete sneakers". I see no difference between the mobsters and government.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 12:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8dpmi$j7r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341926 |
On 01/27/16 13:23, Ezekiel wrote: > "GreyCloud"<mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message > news:n8b5ar$8jr$7@dont-email.me... >> On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote: >>> >>> It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the >>> inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some >>> guy >>> down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want >>> him >>> to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people should >>> be >>> bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. >>> >> Odd that the constitution makes no mention of any conditions to let you >> own a gun. It just states that you have the right to bear arms and >> nothing more. It is the libtards that are slowly redefining the terms. >> Bottom line is that these libtards are nothing more than communists. >> > > The entire Bill of Rights is terse and simply worded. The authors didn't go > into detail on any of the amendments. > > Along these lines, the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law > prohibiting you from exercising whatever religion you want. Yet, you can't > decide that your religion allows you to walk down 5th Avenue completely > naked. Some radical Muslim can't decide that his religion lets him rape > women or kill non-believing infidels.. > > There are sensible limits on religion even though the 1st amendment makes no > mention of any conditions to limit how you practice your religion. Freedom > of speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a movie theater. > > Most everything has reasonable limits and conditions attached. The same > applies to the 2nd amendment. That's how the SCOTUS has ruled in the past. > Depends on whom appointed judges to SCOTUS and their agenda. It may well be that this is an old planned agendga that most people don't know about. No where in the 2nd ammendment does it mention conditions. We are supposed to be a free people. So even tho the gun laws are on the books, they are mostly not enforced in the spirit of the law, so where in the 2nd ammendment does it mention that you have to have a permit to carry any arms? It doesn't. If you appoint most of these judges, from their background checks if any, and they all happen to be socialists/communists, you have an insurgency here. They will do whatever it takes to skew and twist the meaning of the 2nd ammendment by appealing to reason, but never showing their true intent. Tyrants do not like an armed populace. History bears this out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 20:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8eekg$117$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341996 |
"GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message
news:n8dpmi$j7r$1@dont-email.me...
> On 01/27/16 13:23, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "GreyCloud"<mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message
>> news:n8b5ar$8jr$7@dont-email.me...
>>> On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> There are sensible limits on religion even though the 1st amendment makes
>> no
>> mention of any conditions to limit how you practice your religion.
>> Freedom
>> of speech doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a movie theater.
>>
>> Most everything has reasonable limits and conditions attached. The same
>> applies to the 2nd amendment. That's how the SCOTUS has ruled in the
>> past.
>>
> Depends on whom appointed judges to SCOTUS and their agenda.
> It may well be that this is an old planned agendga that most people don't
> know about.
> No where in the 2nd ammendment does it mention conditions.
The entire Bill of Rights is very short and terse. The 2nd ammendment is
only 27 words.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
The 1st ammendment (freedom of speech, religion...) isn't much longer at 45
words.
I think those guys were smart enough to realize they can't see the future.
Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial is this which Thomas Jefferson strongly
believed in:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions,
but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the
human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change,
with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep
pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat
which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the
regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Jefferson didn't even have electricity and he wouldn't even recognize our
world. I believe the founding fathers were basically laying down the
foundation, planting a seed and saying - We got this country started and
it's now your turn to run with the ball. Keep the laws current and relevant
but don't ever forget the core values.
> We are supposed to be a free people.
And I want to be free from "criminals and the mentally ill" having a gun. I
also want to be free from some neighbor having nuclear weapons. Stuff like
this is a bigger issue today than it was back in the 1700's.
No nukes but I'm still free enough where I own some very nice firearms that
Jefferson couldn't even image.
> So even tho the gun laws are on the books, they are mostly not enforced in
> the spirit of the law, so where in the 2nd ammendment does it mention that
> you have to have a permit to carry any arms? It doesn't. If you appoint
> most of these judges, from their background checks if any, and they all
> happen to be socialists/communists, you have an insurgency here. They
> will do whatever it takes to skew and twist the meaning of the 2nd
> ammendment by appealing to reason, but never showing their true intent.
> Tyrants do not like an armed populace. History bears this out.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 19:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8bmh3$mi9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341912 |
On 2016-01-27 2:23 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote: >> "Slimer"<.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n88431$qfj$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 2016-01-26 10:08 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently, you _DON'T_ pay attention: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/california-gun-confiscation_n_2717809.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <quote> >>>>>> California Gun Confiscation Program Heralded As Model For Nation >>>>>> >>>>>> California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials >>>>>> confiscate >>>>>> guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. >>>>>> The >>>>>> program, which takes guns away from criminals and the mentally >>>>>> ill, is >>>>>> being >>>>>> heralded as a model for the nation. >>>>>> </quote> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> If they ever do try to "change the playing field", then there will be >>>> something to bitch and complain about. Until then I'm not going to >>>> worry >>>> that they're enforcing the existing laws and taking guns from criminals >>>> and >>>> mentally ill people who are "not legally permitted to own them." >>> >>> Except that they DID already change the playing field by denying >>> California's citizens of a right they had since the creation of the >>> Constitution. You SHOULD be bitching, but you aren't. >> >> The right to own a gun isn't (and shouldn't be) unconditional. There's >> nothing wrong with convicted criminals not being allowed to own guns. >> >> Just like the right to vote... if you're a felon then in most states you >> can't vote until after your sentence (and any parole) have been >> completed or >> you can't vote period in other states. Some drunk who has several DUIs >> loses >> their license and isn't allowed to drive. >> >> I'm a responsible gun owner in one of the toughest states to get a gun. >> Living here I have no problem either getting all the guns I want. I also >> have no problem with someone who's a convicted felon losing their >> right to >> buy a gun. >> >> It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the >> inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some >> guy >> down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want >> him >> to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people >> should be >> bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. >> > Odd that the constitution makes no mention of any conditions to let you > own a gun. It just states that you have the right to bear arms and > nothing more. It is the libtards that are slowly redefining the terms. > Bottom line is that these libtards are nothing more than communists. Libtards are also the reason why Europe will soon cease to exist and become yet another breeding ground for the kind, wonderful, peace-loving, sand-sucking, pedophile-admiring, egomaniac-worshipping vermin known as Muslims. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla & PETA supporter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 12:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8dpuq$j7r$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341942 |
On 01/27/16 17:17, Slimer wrote: > On 2016-01-27 2:23 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote: >>> "Slimer"<.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n88431$qfj$1@dont-email.me... >>>> On 2016-01-26 10:08 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apparently, you _DON'T_ pay attention: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/california-gun-confiscation_n_2717809.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>> California Gun Confiscation Program Heralded As Model For Nation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials >>>>>>> confiscate >>>>>>> guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> program, which takes guns away from criminals and the mentally >>>>>>> ill, is >>>>>>> being >>>>>>> heralded as a model for the nation. >>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If they ever do try to "change the playing field", then there will be >>>>> something to bitch and complain about. Until then I'm not going to >>>>> worry >>>>> that they're enforcing the existing laws and taking guns from criminals >>>>> and >>>>> mentally ill people who are "not legally permitted to own them." >>>> >>>> Except that they DID already change the playing field by denying >>>> California's citizens of a right they had since the creation of the >>>> Constitution. You SHOULD be bitching, but you aren't. >>> >>> The right to own a gun isn't (and shouldn't be) unconditional. There's >>> nothing wrong with convicted criminals not being allowed to own guns. >>> >>> Just like the right to vote... if you're a felon then in most states you >>> can't vote until after your sentence (and any parole) have been >>> completed or >>> you can't vote period in other states. Some drunk who has several DUIs >>> loses >>> their license and isn't allowed to drive. >>> >>> I'm a responsible gun owner in one of the toughest states to get a gun. >>> Living here I have no problem either getting all the guns I want. I also >>> have no problem with someone who's a convicted felon losing their >>> right to >>> buy a gun. >>> >>> It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the >>> inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some >>> guy >>> down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want >>> him >>> to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people >>> should be >>> bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. >>> >> Odd that the constitution makes no mention of any conditions to let you >> own a gun. It just states that you have the right to bear arms and >> nothing more. It is the libtards that are slowly redefining the terms. >> Bottom line is that these libtards are nothing more than communists. > > Libtards are also the reason why Europe will soon cease to exist and > become yet another breeding ground for the kind, wonderful, > peace-loving, sand-sucking, pedophile-admiring, egomaniac-worshipping > vermin known as Muslims. > > They're trying to do that here. Obama is still importing illegals and muslims here. Its his agenda and it sticks out quite obviously that he is also a muslim. Birds of the same feather flock together.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 14:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8dr2o$osq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341998 |
On 2016-01-28 2:27 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 01/27/16 17:17, Slimer wrote: >> On 2016-01-27 2:23 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>> On 01/26/16 09:10, Ezekiel wrote: >>>> "Slimer"<.m@nsn.s> wrote in message >>>> news:n88431$qfj$1@dont-email.me... >>>>> On 2016-01-26 10:08 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apparently, you _DON'T_ pay attention: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/california-gun-confiscation_n_2717809.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>> California Gun Confiscation Program Heralded As Model For Nation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials >>>>>>>> confiscate >>>>>>>> guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own >>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> program, which takes guns away from criminals and the mentally >>>>>>>> ill, is >>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>> heralded as a model for the nation. >>>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If they ever do try to "change the playing field", then there will be >>>>>> something to bitch and complain about. Until then I'm not going to >>>>>> worry >>>>>> that they're enforcing the existing laws and taking guns from >>>>>> criminals >>>>>> and >>>>>> mentally ill people who are "not legally permitted to own them." >>>>> >>>>> Except that they DID already change the playing field by denying >>>>> California's citizens of a right they had since the creation of the >>>>> Constitution. You SHOULD be bitching, but you aren't. >>>> >>>> The right to own a gun isn't (and shouldn't be) unconditional. There's >>>> nothing wrong with convicted criminals not being allowed to own guns. >>>> >>>> Just like the right to vote... if you're a felon then in most states >>>> you >>>> can't vote until after your sentence (and any parole) have been >>>> completed or >>>> you can't vote period in other states. Some drunk who has several DUIs >>>> loses >>>> their license and isn't allowed to drive. >>>> >>>> I'm a responsible gun owner in one of the toughest states to get a gun. >>>> Living here I have no problem either getting all the guns I want. I >>>> also >>>> have no problem with someone who's a convicted felon losing their >>>> right to >>>> buy a gun. >>>> >>>> It's just common sense and I'm not going get all worked up over the >>>> inability of convicted felons to legally own guns. And if there's some >>>> guy >>>> down the street that just got out of a mental hospital... I don't want >>>> him >>>> to have a gun either. It's called common sense. If anything people >>>> should be >>>> bitching if felons and mental cases did own guns. >>>> >>> Odd that the constitution makes no mention of any conditions to let you >>> own a gun. It just states that you have the right to bear arms and >>> nothing more. It is the libtards that are slowly redefining the terms. >>> Bottom line is that these libtards are nothing more than communists. >> >> Libtards are also the reason why Europe will soon cease to exist and >> become yet another breeding ground for the kind, wonderful, >> peace-loving, sand-sucking, pedophile-admiring, egomaniac-worshipping >> vermin known as Muslims. >> >> > They're trying to do that here. Obama is still importing illegals and > muslims here. Its his agenda and it sticks out quite obviously that he > is also a muslim. > Birds of the same feather flock together. > Obama must be either blind or stupid not to notice how much damage they've been doing in the past few days, weeks and months with their rapes and assaults of people on Europe. There's only so much that you can ignore before you finally admit the problem and realize that maybe, just maybe these Muslims are neither kind, wonderful or peace-loving and you seal the door shut on them. I get along with the Muslims that are here, but they went ahead and emigrated to this country _properly_ and were not given anything on their arrival. Meanwhile, the "refugees" Obama and the Chris Ahsltrom-like faggot running things in Canada not only welcomes them first-hand when they arrive but now wants to refund any money they spent coming here. It's disgusting, especially when you consider how poorly they integrate and how easily they damage our culture. If Muslims insist on coming here, I expect them to at least integrate. If they can't, fuck 'em. Deporting them is not an option as even their country of origin doesn't want their vermin ass anymore. Might as well stuff them into containers and drop them in the middle of the ocean where Allah will welcome them with open arms. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla & PETA supporter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 23:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <XnsA59BB921E6E7johngrubor@178.63.61.145> |
| In reply to | #341745 |
Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote in news:n881c3$cpv$2@dont-email.me: > What bothers me is that you Americans actually believe that the > government will apply this to the letter and won't change the playing > field even though they have done so repeatedly over the last two > centuries. History repeats itself because none of you are willing to > learn it and apply its lessons to your current existence. You really should worry about matters in your own country. You're horribly informed about what's going on here, that much is obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 18:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n890hf$qgc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341813 |
On 2016-01-26 6:11 PM, Dr. John Grubor wrote: > Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote in news:n881c3$cpv$2@dont-email.me: > >> What bothers me is that you Americans actually believe that the >> government will apply this to the letter and won't change the playing >> field even though they have done so repeatedly over the last two >> centuries. History repeats itself because none of you are willing to >> learn it and apply its lessons to your current existence. > > You really should worry about matters in your own country. You're horribly > informed about what's going on here, that much is obvious. I'm not, you're just in denial. I'm looking forward to seeing your country follow France into becoming an official police state. Enjoy your left-wing president. -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla & PETA supporter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 12:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <XnsA59C4946588A8johngrubor@178.63.61.145> |
| In reply to | #341816 |
Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> wrote in news:n890hf$qgc$1@dont-email.me: > I'm not, you're just in denial. I'm looking forward to seeing your > country follow France into becoming an official police state. Enjoy your > left-wing president. Thank you, we will. You understand he has just a few months left in office, correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 08:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <n8agia$16j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #341861 |
On 2016-01-27 7:12 AM, Dr. John Grubor wrote: > Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> wrote in news:n890hf$qgc$1@dont-email.me: > >> I'm not, you're just in denial. I'm looking forward to seeing your >> country follow France into becoming an official police state. Enjoy your >> left-wing president. > > Thank you, we will. > > You understand he has just a few months left in office, correct? And you understand that Democrats have the choice between a mentally-ill criminal and a Communist to replace him, right? -- Slimer EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla & PETA supporter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dr. John Grubor" <grubor@grubor.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 02:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gitcher guns! |
| Message-ID | <XnsA59CD781C5A73johngrubor@178.63.61.145> |
| In reply to | #341878 |
Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> wrote in news:n8agia$16j$2@dont-email.me: > And you understand that Democrats have the choice between a mentally-ill > criminal and a Communist to replace him, right? Bah. Arguing with you is pointless, so I'll refrain as I promised before. Goodbye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web