Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Snit Newsgroups: sci.physics,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.checkmate,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 09:31:28 -0700 Lines: 82 Message-ID: References: <2lvbhdl8m52dad4q6cc9tgqg02lmo3asid@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net TYVdXCSWLLRqfX2mcmL/ewaitvosvXOBH+xO+yjvs4puJTwbMP Cancel-Lock: sha1:IN8VnuZt3uCDSVaebhpgDIAnR0g= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:689670 comp.os.linux.advocacy:454553 alt.checkmate:172617 talk.politics.guns:1092155 On 6/9/18 9:20 AM, benj wrote: > On 6/9/2018 9:22 AM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit typed: >> >>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "max headroom" wrote in message >>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit typed: >>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >> >>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >> >>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >> >>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first time >>>>>> the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >> >>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >> >>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>> specific keywords. >> >>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >> >>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >> >>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >> >> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >> >> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted >> your claims, supported by >> various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. >> >> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? >> >> > No, but it happily disrupts all on-topic discussions. I repeatedly push things back onto topic. If you do not like it that is on you. * 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. -- 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.