Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #687921 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-31 02:37 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-06-03 09:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 578 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 02:37 -0400
Re:Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:16 +0200
Re: Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 03:51 -0400
Slaughtering concert goers. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-31 05:22 -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 <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. "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. "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 <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 <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: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Slaughtering concert goers. ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <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 ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-02 08:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 12:30 -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. 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. "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. "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. 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. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0400
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. 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
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:51 -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
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 ? Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-06-02 20:36 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:53 -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 ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:08 -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: 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. "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. 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: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:49 -0700
Depressed Losers, slaughtering consert goers, is "natural" ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:21 -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. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:25 -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. "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
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-02 01:20 -0400
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. 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. 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. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-03 20:11 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:20 -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. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:11 -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. 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. 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. 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. "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. 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. "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. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400
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 🐶笛 <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. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 01:30 -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. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -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. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 06:25 -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. 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. 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. !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. 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. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-05 22:44 -0400
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. 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. "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:09 -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. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 02:01 -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. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -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. "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. 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. !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 <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. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 17:20 -0400
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. "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. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:53 -0700
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. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 19:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 20:21 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:36 -0400
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. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:58 -0600
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
Re: Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! Dave Zeeman <arougroutinette@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 09:06 -0700
Page 5 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 29 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 22:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fneov0Ft3t0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688237 |
On 6/1/18 10:19 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnehkiFrrtgU4@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 8:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fne9fjFqieiU2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 6/1/18 5:39 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:fndl5rFn1dhU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:27:19 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 8:12 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:46:59 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/18 3:21 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in article >>>>>>>>>>>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1781. Article >>>>>>>>>>>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the second amendment has not.. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He's babbling about "Document [sic] of Confederation" and >>>>>>>>>>> claims it >>>>>>>>>>> was "never repealed." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is not current law, of course, but the language it uses, >>>>>>>>>> and the way >>>>>>>>>> it describes a militia, is enlightening. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, it doesn't "describe" a militia, actually. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, >>>>>>>>> except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the >>>>>>>>> United >>>>>>>>> States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or >>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>> trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in >>>>>>>>> time of >>>>>>>>> peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United >>>>>>>>> States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to >>>>>>>>> garrison >>>>>>>>> the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State >>>>>>>>> shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, >>>>>>>>> sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and >>>>>>>>> constantly >>>>>>>>> have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed >>>>>>>>> pieces and >>>>>>>>> tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp >>>>>>>>> equipage. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It describes the expectations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >>>>>> >>>>>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase >>>>>> "bear arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, but like keeping arms, bearing arms isn't something limited >>>>> to the militia. >>>> >>>> As discussed: bearing arms is used pretty much SOLELY in that and >>>> related contexts.... and NOT for self defense. >>> >>> Sorry, but one of those pesky quotes you chose to ignore directly >>> refutes that as well as all those period definitions I posted. >> >> Which quote that used that term do you mean? > > The one I gave you. > > If you're not going to read period quotes concerning the subject then > you can hardly claim to know what they meant. > > But since you you apparently don't want to know the facts, I'll rub your > nose in it again. > > > "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) > assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise > it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times > armed." > - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 > > Now, think for a moment, do you really think that Thomas Jefferson > expected the people to be actively working as the militia ALL THE > TIME????????? > > So, this one quote refutes your entire argument. > > Here, let me throw a new one at you. > > "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right > of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has > been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest > limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of > the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext > whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the > brink of destruction." > - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 > > Once again the usage is in a clearly no military manner and in this case > against is done for self defense. > >> >>> But I will just ask instead.....how exactly can you expect to defend >>> others, when you can't even defend yourself? >> >> You can defend yourself from some things and not others. Not sure what >> you are trying to get at their. > > The proposition is very simply. How can I defend others if I can't > defend myself? > > Or since that straight forward statement seems too complex for you.... > > If I'm killed because I can bear arms for my own defense....then how can > I be around later to bear arms for the defense of others. > > > >> >>>> But this has been covered. >>> >>> Yea, and you totally ignored it. >> >> If I missed some quote with the phrase "bear arms" I apologize. Can >> you re-quote it? > > Done, but I'm not going to keep repeating it just because you wish to > ignore that which refutes your claims.....while you have YET to produce > anything to support your own claims. > > So you have nothing to say about the meaning of "bear arms", nor its usage. Fair enough. <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 University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s 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 “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military. But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- -- 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 | 2018-06-01 21:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pestfp$g9h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688135 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fndl5rFn1dhU1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:27:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/18 8:12 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:46:59 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/18 3:21 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in >>>>>>>>> article >>>>>>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. >>>>>>>>> Article >>>>>>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the second amendment has not.. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> He's babbling about "Document [sic] of Confederation" and claims it >>>>>> was "never repealed." >>>>>> >>>>> It is not current law, of course, but the language it uses, and the >>>>> way >>>>> it describes a militia, is enlightening. >>>> >>>> Well, it doesn't "describe" a militia, actually. >>>> >>>> No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, >>>> except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United >>>> States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its >>>> trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of >>>> peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United >>>> States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison >>>> the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State >>>> shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, >>>> sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly >>>> have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and >>>> tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. >>> >>> >>> It describes the expectations >> >> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. > > It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear arms" > and the concept of a militia was seen. No, it only shows part of the context of arms, and only part of the concept of a militia. Specifically only those in which the government is involved. It doesn't describe the person bearing arms to provide for their own person defense....nor does it address the average person going about their daily lives until and unless called into militia service. So while there is some context there, it is only a minor fraction of the total. Indeed, I bet you're not aware that most people in the US have been in the militia for at least some part of their lives.....but that doesn't mean they were ever called to serve. That doesn’t alter their status and duty to serve when called. Indeed being prepared is a large part of avoiding conflict so even a person who's never been called into militia service who has their own personal rifle at home is aiding the common defense. Both as a deterrent and as a resource that can been called upon at times of need. Now, remove that person's gun, and they largely cease to be a deterrent, and would be largely ineffective if called into service because they would lack the arms necessary to be so until and unless someone else managed to supply him with arms. Which is why the right is that of the people.....not the right of just the militia. > >>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>> >>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the second >>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >> >> Well of course it does. If you read it. > > I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you ignore. > You claim it means something other than what it says directly but offer no > evidence. Which would you like defined? Arms? Arms 'ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.] 1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. Webster's Dictionary 1828 Keep? Keep KEEP, verb transitive preterit tense and participle passive kept. [Latin habeo, and capio.] 1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart. Webster's Dictionary 1828 Bear? Bear BEAR, verb transitive preterit tense bore; participle passive born, borne. [Latin fero, pario, porto. The primary sense is to throw out, to bring forth, or in general, to thrust or drive along. ] 2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, 'they bear him upon the shoulder; ', 'the eagle beareth them on her wings.' Webster's Dictionary 1828 People? People PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.] 1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. Webster's Dictionary 1828 Right? Right RIGHT, noun 10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public. Put it all together and you get "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...." and I don't see the militia, or militia involvement, anywhere in the definitions necessary to understand the meaning of this phrase.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 19:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnecneFr49cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688199 |
On 6/1/18 6:26 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fndl5rFn1dhU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:27:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/1/18 8:12 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:46:59 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/1/18 3:21 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in >>>>>>>>>> article >>>>>>>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in >>>>>>>>>> 1781. Article >>>>>>>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But the second amendment has not.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He's babbling about "Document [sic] of Confederation" and claims it >>>>>>> was "never repealed." >>>>>>> >>>>>> It is not current law, of course, but the language it uses, and >>>>>> the way >>>>>> it describes a militia, is enlightening. >>>>> >>>>> Well, it doesn't "describe" a militia, actually. >>>>> >>>>> No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, >>>>> except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United >>>>> States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its >>>>> trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of >>>>> peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United >>>>> States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison >>>>> the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State >>>>> shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, >>>>> sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly >>>>> have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and >>>>> tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. >>>> >>>> >>>> It describes the expectations >>> >>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >> >> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. > > No, it only shows part of the context of arms, and only part of the > concept of a militia. > > Specifically only those in which the government is involved. > > It doesn't describe the person bearing arms to provide for their own > person defense....nor does it address the average person going about > their daily lives until and unless called into militia service. > > So while there is some context there, it is only a minor fraction of the > total. Indeed, I bet you're not aware that most people in the US have > been in the militia for at least some part of their lives.....but that > doesn't mean they were ever called to serve. That doesn’t alter their > status and duty to serve when called. Indeed being prepared is a large > part of avoiding conflict so even a person who's never been called into > militia service who has their own personal rifle at home is aiding the > common defense. Both as a deterrent and as a resource that can been > called upon at times of need. > > Now, remove that person's gun, and they largely cease to be a deterrent, > and would be largely ineffective if called into service because they > would lack the arms necessary to be so until and unless someone else > managed to supply him with arms. > > Which is why the right is that of the people.....not the right of just > the militia. > > > >> >>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>> >>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the second >>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>> >>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >> >> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you >> ignore. You claim it means something other than what it says directly >> but offer no evidence. > > Which would you like defined? > > Arms? > > Arms > 'ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.] > 1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. > Webster's Dictionary 1828 > > Keep? > > Keep > KEEP, verb transitive preterit tense and participle passive kept. [Latin > habeo, and capio.] > 1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part > with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, > mind or heart. > Webster's Dictionary 1828 > > Bear? > > Bear > BEAR, verb transitive preterit tense bore; participle passive born, > borne. [Latin fero, pario, porto. The primary sense is to throw out, to > bring forth, or in general, to thrust or drive along. ] > 2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, > 'they bear him upon the shoulder; ', 'the eagle beareth them on her wings.' > Webster's Dictionary 1828 > > People? > > People > PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.] > 1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We > say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English > people In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it > comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, > or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. > Webster's Dictionary 1828 > > Right? > > Right > RIGHT, noun > 10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure > enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the > right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. > Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public. > > Put it all together and you get "...the right of the people to keep and > bear arms...." > > and I don't see the militia, or militia involvement, anywhere in the > definitions necessary to understand the meaning of this phrase. > > You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other context. While there is some contention, from what we have seen the general view of scholars who look at the subject say the second amendment applied to state rights and not individual rights. We know that many laws have existed since the founding of the country, including ones near or at the founding, which made it illegal to even have a loaded gun in your house or to do what we now call open carry. Some laws not only required tracking of who had guns but required training and other even loyalty oaths. NONE of these, as far as we know, were challenged on second amendment terms. Even the Heller case, a 5:4 decision where judicial activism was used, specifically notes that there can be limits. Given all of that, I am not sure what point you are even trying to make. Can you be specific? And if you contradict what we know can you show some support? -- 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 | 2018-06-01 23:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pet2ke$74n$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688203 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnecneFr49cU1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 6:26 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fndl5rFn1dhU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/1/18 11:59 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:27:19 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/18 8:12 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:46:59 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/1/18 3:21 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in >>>>>>>>>>> article >>>>>>>>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. >>>>>>>>>>> Article >>>>>>>>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the second amendment has not.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He's babbling about "Document [sic] of Confederation" and claims it >>>>>>>> was "never repealed." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is not current law, of course, but the language it uses, and the >>>>>>> way >>>>>>> it describes a militia, is enlightening. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, it doesn't "describe" a militia, actually. >>>>>> >>>>>> No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, >>>>>> except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United >>>>>> States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its >>>>>> trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time >>>>>> of >>>>>> peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United >>>>>> States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison >>>>>> the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State >>>>>> shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, >>>>>> sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly >>>>>> have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces >>>>>> and >>>>>> tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It describes the expectations >>>> >>>> Hmmmmm. Yet it doesn't define militia, as you previously maintained. >>> >>> It, along with plenty of other evidence, shows how the phrase "bear >>> arms" and the concept of a militia was seen. >> >> No, it only shows part of the context of arms, and only part of the >> concept of a militia. >> >> Specifically only those in which the government is involved. >> >> It doesn't describe the person bearing arms to provide for their own >> person defense....nor does it address the average person going about >> their daily lives until and unless called into militia service. >> >> So while there is some context there, it is only a minor fraction of the >> total. Indeed, I bet you're not aware that most people in the US have >> been in the militia for at least some part of their lives.....but that >> doesn't mean they were ever called to serve. That doesn’t alter their >> status and duty to serve when called. Indeed being prepared is a large >> part of avoiding conflict so even a person who's never been called into >> militia service who has their own personal rifle at home is aiding the >> common defense. Both as a deterrent and as a resource that can been >> called upon at times of need. >> >> Now, remove that person's gun, and they largely cease to be a deterrent, >> and would be largely ineffective if called into service because they >> would lack the arms necessary to be so until and unless someone else >> managed to supply him with arms. >> >> Which is why the right is that of the people.....not the right of just >> the militia. >> >> >> >>> >>>>> of one, both you and I have quoted. >>>>> >>>>> Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the >>>>> second >>>>> amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. >>>> >>>> Well of course it does. If you read it. >>> >>> I have... and also shown the context for the meaning, which you ignore. >>> You claim it means something other than what it says directly but offer >>> no evidence. >> >> Which would you like defined? >> >> Arms? >> >> Arms >> 'ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.] >> 1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. >> Webster's Dictionary 1828 >> >> Keep? >> >> Keep >> KEEP, verb transitive preterit tense and participle passive kept. [Latin >> habeo, and capio.] >> 1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part >> with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, >> mind or heart. >> Webster's Dictionary 1828 >> >> Bear? >> >> Bear >> BEAR, verb transitive preterit tense bore; participle passive born, >> borne. [Latin fero, pario, porto. The primary sense is to throw out, to >> bring forth, or in general, to thrust or drive along. ] >> 2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, >> 'they bear him upon the shoulder; ', 'the eagle beareth them on her >> wings.' >> Webster's Dictionary 1828 >> >> People? >> >> People >> PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.] >> 1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We >> say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English >> people In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it >> comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, >> or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. >> Webster's Dictionary 1828 >> >> Right? >> >> Right >> RIGHT, noun >> 10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure >> enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the >> right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. >> Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public. >> >> Put it all together and you get "...the right of the people to keep and >> bear arms...." >> >> and I don't see the militia, or militia involvement, anywhere in the >> definitions necessary to understand the meaning of this phrase. >> >> > You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" is > used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. > > The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other > context. BULLSHIT. It mentions 2 rights of the people which are not in any manner dependent upon the militia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 20:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnehmhFrrtgU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688213 |
On 6/1/18 8:15 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >> defense. >> >> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other >> context. > > > BULLSHIT. > > It mentions 2 rights of the people which are not in any manner dependent > upon the militia. It mentions the militia, NOT the people, and it uses the phrase "bear arms" which you want to twist the meaning of to try to "prove" some point. 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 University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s 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 “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military. But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- Why do you want to alter the use of that phrase? -- 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 | 2018-06-02 01:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <petbka$atj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688218 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnehmhFrrtgU5@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 8:15 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" >>> is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. >>> >>> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other >>> context. >> >> >> BULLSHIT. >> >> It mentions 2 rights of the people which are not in any manner dependent >> upon the militia. > > It mentions the militia, NOT the people, From the copy in Washington DC "....the right of the people..... clearly it does mention the people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fneq8sFtb3qU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688243 |
On 6/1/18 10:32 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnehmhFrrtgU5@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 8:15 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>> defense. >>>> >>>> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other >>>> context. >>> >>> >>> BULLSHIT. >>> >>> It mentions 2 rights of the people which are not in any manner >>> dependent upon the militia. >> >> It mentions the militia, NOT the people, > > From the copy in Washington DC > > "....the right of the people..... > > clearly it does mention the people. > > It is, literally, the shortest sentence in the constitution... and you failed to quote it all (to do so would give the context). The NRA plays similar games. Still, I did incorrectly say it does not mention the people... of course it does, but int the context of a militia. Sorry for the error. This whole "debate" is so inane I am not really paying attention to it (which does not mean it is not my error -- I own my mistakes!) -- 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 | 2018-06-01 20:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pespv6$rp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688111 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnd6unFk8seU1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 8:12 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:46:59 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/18 3:21 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. >>>>>>> Article >>>>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>>>> >>>>> But the second amendment has not.. >>>> >>>> >>>> He's babbling about "Document [sic] of Confederation" and claims it >>>> was "never repealed." >>>> >>> It is not current law, of course, but the language it uses, and the way >>> it describes a militia, is enlightening. >> >> Well, it doesn't "describe" a militia, actually. >> >> No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, >> except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United >> States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its >> trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of >> peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United >> States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison >> the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State >> shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, >> sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly >> have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and >> tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. > > > It describes the expectations of one, both you and I have quoted. > > Now one might say all of what it said is not required... but the second > amendment makes no suggestion of anything otherwise. Sure it does. Because it sets no such conditions are the Articles were rendered null and void with the ratification of the Constitution. So it really makes NO difference what the Articles have to say, but you still have a big problem in that the 2nd doesn't speak of the right of the militia, but rather the right of the people....so it makes NO difference what the militia is or isn't....the right of the people remains and is protected by the 2nd whether they are in the militia or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 20:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pespv5$rp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688101 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnd4j3Fjq6gU1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 3:21 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. >>>>> Article >>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>> >>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>> >>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>> >>> But the second amendment has not.. >> >> >> He's babbling about "Document [sic] of Confederation" and claims it >> was "never repealed." >> > It is not current law, of course, but the language it uses, and the way it > describes a militia, is enlightening. > > "... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined > militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and > constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed > pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp > equipage." Great, but the problem is the right talked about in the 2nd is NOT stated as being the right of the militia....but rather the right of the people. You do understand there is a difference between "militia" and "people" right? Now let's see how the Articles treat the term "people" and let's see if they are talking about just those in the "militia". "Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the united States, or either of them." Doesn't sound like they are referencing the militia "Article IX. The united States in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article — of sending and receiving ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated — of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts." Still doesn't sound like they are talking about the militia So....looks like the articles do NOT support your bullshit, and even here the people did NOT reference just those in the militia, but rather everyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 20:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <peso6r$obr$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688078 |
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message news:h872hdhl1cncapai5vqdi98buh671s4vas@4ax.com... > On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. >>>> Article >>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>> >>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>> >>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>> >>But the second amendment has not.. > > > He's babbling about "Document [sic] of Confederation" and claims it > was "never repealed." Sure it was, by the ratification of the Constitution which annulled the Articles of Confederation. Oh, there wasn't a piece of paper that specifically said "Hey, those Articles of Confederation are repealed". But lots of laws are repealed by superseding them with different legislation and no special acknowledgement of repeal is necessary. The fact of rendering them legally null and void means they have been repealed.....BY DEFINITION.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 18:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <j2r3hdd30qdlp8dd27ve1elnlcbnvulm0d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #688187 |
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 20:26:14 -0400, "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > >"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >news:h872hdhl1cncapai5vqdi98buh671s4vas@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. >>>>> Article >>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>> >>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>> >>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>> >>>But the second amendment has not.. >> >> >> He's babbling about "Document [sic] of Confederation" and claims it >> was "never repealed." > >Sure it was, by the ratification of the Constitution which annulled the >Articles of Confederation. Oh, there wasn't a piece of paper that >specifically said "Hey, those Articles of Confederation are repealed". But >lots of laws are repealed by superseding them with different legislation and >no special acknowledgement of repeal is necessary. The fact of rendering >them legally null and void means they have been repealed.....BY DEFINITION. > Even a fake teacher like !Jones is supposed to know this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 08:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <grg2hd1k8bs2c7fm7i39vqg40n5bm6hra1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #688063 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >> >>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. Article >>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >> >> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >> >> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >> >But the second amendment has not... and only in 2008, through the Heller >case, was the meaning of it changed. Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the fed the power to tax and the articles did not. The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; that was seen as a local matter. When the 1787 document uses the term "a well regulated militia", it is referring to article six of the confederation document for a more precise definition. Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 07:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnd47bFjo6aU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688087 |
On 6/1/18 6:08 AM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. Article >>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>> >>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>> >>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>> >> But the second amendment has not... and only in 2008, through the Heller >> case, was the meaning of it changed. > > Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It > simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an > existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 > augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is > no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the > fed the power to tax and the articles did not. > > The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. > Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; that was seen > as a local matter. When the 1787 document uses the term "a well > regulated militia", it is referring to article six of the > confederation document for a more precise definition. > > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > Interesting history on it. Thank you. -- 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 | 2018-06-01 21:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pestfr$g9h$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688099 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnd47bFjo6aU2@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 6:08 AM, !Jones wrote: >> x-no-idiots: yes >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. >>>>> Article >>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>> >>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>> >>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>> >>> But the second amendment has not... and only in 2008, through the Heller >>> case, was the meaning of it changed. >> >> Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It >> simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an >> existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 >> augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is >> no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the >> fed the power to tax and the articles did not. >> >> The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. >> Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 “[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” William Grayson Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison The Federalist, No. 46 “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” Noah Webster An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787 So much for that bullshit claim by Snit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 19:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnecu9Fr49cU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688201 |
On 6/1/18 6:35 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnd47bFjo6aU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 6:08 AM, !Jones wrote: >>> x-no-idiots: yes >>> >>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. >>>>>> Article >>>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>>> >>>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>>> >>>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>>> >>>> But the second amendment has not... and only in 2008, through the >>>> Heller >>>> case, was the meaning of it changed. >>> >>> Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It >>> simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an >>> existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 >>> augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is >>> no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the >>> fed the power to tax and the articles did not. >>> >>> The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. >>> Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; > > “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our > country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow > citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in > their right to keep and bear their private arms.” > Tench Coxe > Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 > > “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress > to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; > or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable > citizens, from keeping their own arms.” > Samuel Adams > Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 > > “[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these > altogether respected personal liberty.” > William Grayson > Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of > what became the Bill of Rights > > The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans > possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the > governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” > James Madison > The Federalist, No. 46 > > “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they > are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America > cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the > people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular > troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A > military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but > such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will > possess the power.” > Noah Webster > An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, > Philadelphia, 1787 > > > So much for that bullshit claim by Snit. You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other context. While there is some contention, from what we have seen the general view of scholars who look at the subject say the second amendment applied to state rights and not individual rights. We know that many laws have existed since the founding of the country, including ones near or at the founding, which made it illegal to even have a loaded gun in your house or to do what we now call open carry. Some laws not only required tracking of who had guns but required training and other even loyalty oaths. NONE of these, as far as we know, were challenged on second amendment terms. Even the Heller case, a 5:4 decision where judicial activism was used, specifically notes that there can be limits. When faced with those facts you point to quotes from <https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990729/america-s-founding-fathers-on-the-2a>, do not even site your source, and deem the actual evidence to be "bullshit". Um, OK. -- 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 | 2018-06-01 23:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pet4cp$8ru$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688205 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnecu9Fr49cU3@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 6:35 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnd47bFjo6aU2@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/1/18 6:08 AM, !Jones wrote: >>>> x-no-idiots: yes >>>> >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 21:26:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/31/18 5:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:42 -0500, !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>>>>> six of our Document [sic] of Confederation and ratified in 1781. >>>>>>> Article >>>>>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Holy SHIT you're stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of COURSE it's been "repealed," you ignorant fuck. >>>>>> >>>>> But the second amendment has not... and only in 2008, through the >>>>> Heller >>>>> case, was the meaning of it changed. >>>> >>>> Klaus is saying that the Document of Confederation was repealed? It >>>> simply was not. Many times it's just too much trouble to repeal an >>>> existing law if it's not hurting anything. The Constitution of 1787 >>>> augmented the Articles and superceded some of them; however, there is >>>> no language repealing the articles. E.g.: the constitution gives the >>>> fed the power to tax and the articles did not. >>>> >>>> The debate went to "a well regulated militia" versus a standing army. >>>> Nobody ever even mentioned weapons as personal property; >> >> “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our >> country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow >> citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in >> their right to keep and bear their private arms.” >> Tench Coxe >> Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 >> >> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress >> to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; >> or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable >> citizens, from keeping their own arms.” >> Samuel Adams >> Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 >> >> “[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these >> altogether respected personal liberty.” >> William Grayson >> Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of >> what became the Bill of Rights >> >> The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans >> possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the >> governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” >> James Madison >> The Federalist, No. 46 >> >> “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they >> are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America >> cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the >> people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular >> troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A >> military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such >> as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will >> possess the power.” >> Noah Webster >> An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, >> Philadelphia, 1787 >> >> >> So much for that bullshit claim by Snit. > > You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" is > used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms for a multitude of reasons including self defense. Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to defend others? Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them when they were needed. Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 Here's another "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 Which you would tell us is false because they can only be armed while at home. > The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other > context. Bullshit. It mentions the context of the right of the people. Which right, BTW, is not tied to ANY militia context. > While there is some contention, from what we have seen the general view of > scholars who look at the subject say the second amendment applied to state > rights and not individual rights. States don't have rights, they have powers. Further the rights of a group, any group, can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals within that group. For if no individual has the right, then neither can the group as a whole. However, I will just note that the 2nd doesn't speak of the right of the states but rather the right of the people. If you don't think the Founding fathers knew the difference then why is such a difference clearly indicated in the 10th Amendment? They knew EXACTLY who they were addressing with that right of the people...and it certainly wasn't the states.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 21:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688220 |
On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >> defense. > > No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms > for a multitude of reasons including self defense. > > Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for > your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to > defend others? > > Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? > > Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have > guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them when > they were needed. > > Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. > > "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. > They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit > crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for > the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent > homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence > than an armed man." > - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist > Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to the question about the phrase! Of course the reason for that is clear: you have no counter. > Here's another > > "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) > assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise > it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times > armed." > - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to the question about the phrase! Of course the reason for that is clear: you have no counter. > Which you would tell us is false because they can only be armed while at > home. > > > >> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other >> context. > > Bullshit. It mentions the context of the right of the people. > > Which right, BTW, is not tied to ANY militia context. > >> While there is some contention, from what we have seen the general >> view of scholars who look at the subject say the second amendment >> applied to state rights and not individual rights. > > States don't have rights, they have powers. > > Further the rights of a group, any group, can be no more than the sum of > the rights of the individuals within that group. For if no individual > has the right, then neither can the group as a whole. > > However, I will just note that the 2nd doesn't speak of the right of the > states but rather the right of the people. > > If you don't think the Founding fathers knew the difference then why is > such a difference clearly indicated in the 10th Amendment? > > They knew EXACTLY who they were addressing with that right of the > people...and it certainly wasn't the states. > > So still no counter from you dealing with the phrase "bear arms". Fair enough. -- 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 | 2018-06-02 01:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <petbkb$atj$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688222 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... > On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: > ... >>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" >>> is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. >> >> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms for >> a multitude of reasons including self defense. >> >> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >> defend others? >> >> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >> >> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them when >> they were needed. >> >> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >> >> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit >> crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for >> the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, >> for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed >> man." >> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist >> Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 > > That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to the > question about the phrase! Carrying of arms = bearing arms. I've shown that. You've never managed to produce anything to refute it. Simply saying that's not what it means isn't going to cut it particularly when I have shown that it does.,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fneqr7FtdvgU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688246 |
On 6/1/18 10:51 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnejjaFs6f7U2@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/1/18 8:53 PM, Scout wrote: >> ... >>>> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear >>>> arms" is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self >>>> defense. >>> >>> No, you have used examples that only show that, but one can bear arms >>> for a multitude of reasons including self defense. >>> >>> Indeed, it would be utterly necessary for you to be able to carry for >>> your own defense, because otherwise how could you possibly carry to >>> defend others? >>> >>> Further, wouldn't you among those that need to be defended? >>> >>> Finally it would be utterly stupid to tell people they could have >>> guns....but then tell them they couldn't have those guns with them >>> when they were needed. >>> >>> Indeed, I think this quotation directly addresses your claim. >>> >>> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. >>> They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to >>> commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and >>> better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to >>> prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater >>> confidence than an armed man." >>> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century >>> criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >> >> That quote does not have the phrase in question! It is not relevant to >> the question about the phrase! > > > > Carrying of arms = bearing arms. > > I've shown that. You have claimed it... but not backed this uncommon use which is contrary to the context provided IN the second amendment itself. > You've never managed to produce anything to refute it. > > Simply saying that's not what it means isn't going to cut it > particularly when I have shown that it does., Here is what you seem to want to refute but cannot: 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 University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s 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 “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military. But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- -- 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 | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 04:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnem8cFsksjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688220 |
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:53:44 -0400, Scout wrote: > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnecu9Fr49cU3@mid.individual.net... > >> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other >> context. > > Bullshit. It mentions the context of the right of the people. > > Which right, BTW, is not tied to ANY militia context. > 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. [emph. added] *PEOPLE* Now get back in your clown car, Snit. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web