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: â Snowflake â Slaughtering concert goers. â Snowflake â Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 14:07 -0500
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 18:50 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:00 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:29 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:47 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:18 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 09:14 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:48 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:28 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:14 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: â Snowflake â ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? â Snowflake â Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-02 08:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <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 ðķįŽ <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. 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 28 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 26 27 [28] 29 Next page →
| From | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <jieehd195vnesupc2ednnka7l7lr3k82nv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #688926 |
x-no-idiots: yes On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 12:17:37 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in class >rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. Have the teachers and students all wear explosive vests with hydrostatic triggers? Jones -- Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnot06FbpqgU36@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689055 |
On 6/5/18 6:36 PM, !Jones wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 12:17:37 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> What a stupid idea... but much, much better than putting GUNS in class >> rooms. THAT idea is FAR worse. > > Have the teachers and students all wear explosive vests with > hydrostatic triggers? > > Jones > > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > Ricin gas canisters for all citizens. And nukes! -- 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 | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 09:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <uAbQC.165674$mS3.29271@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #688062 |
On 6/1/2018 12:25 AM, Snit wrote: > On 5/31/18 5:49 PM, !Jones wrote: >> x-no-idiots: yes >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 05:22:39 -0700 (Seattle), in talk.politics.guns >> Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote: >> >>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>> slaughtering concert goers. >> >> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >> six of our Document of Confederation and ratified in 1781. Article >> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. The second >> amendment never redefined a "well regulated militia"; therefore, the >> existing definition at the time holds. >> >> The salient part reads: "[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." >> >> Where are the arms kept? I assume that a "filed piece" means a "field >> piece" or light artillery? But the arms are to be kept "in public >> stores". It wasn't about a clock that keeps good time. >> >> Jones >> >> -- >> Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. >> > > At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were laws > against what we now call open carry, and even laws against having loaded > guns in homes. > > The nonsense we are told now is just insane. > No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are unconstitutional. IN other words states and cities cannot override the constitution when it comes to second amendment. This is a recent determination. It's called being incorporated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 07:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnd45sFjo6aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688088 |
On 6/1/18 6:09 AM, benj wrote: > On 6/1/2018 12:25 AM, Snit wrote: >> On 5/31/18 5:49 PM, !Jones wrote: >>> x-no-idiots: yes >>> >>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 05:22:39 -0700 (Seattle), in talk.politics.guns >>> Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote: >>> >>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>> >>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>> six of our Document of Confederation and ratified in 1781. Article >>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. The second >>> amendment never redefined a "well regulated militia"; therefore, the >>> existing definition at the time holds. >>> >>> The salient part reads: "[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." >>> >>> Where are the arms kept? I assume that a "filed piece" means a "field >>> piece" or light artillery? But the arms are to be kept "in public >>> stores". It wasn't about a clock that keeps good time. >>> >>> Jones >>> >>> -- >>> Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. >>> >> >> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were laws >> against what we now call open carry, and even laws against having >> loaded guns in homes. >> >> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. >> > No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are unconstitutional. > IN other words states and cities cannot override the constitution when > it comes to second amendment. This is a recent determination. It's > called being incorporated. First, you might want to look more closely at the Heller case. It makes it clear there ARE limits. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home." It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying one around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes". It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and that this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" and it "finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". And keep in mind, this is a decision where the SCOTUS redefined the second amendment to be more friendly to the modern NRA view. -- 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 | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 13:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <7ofQC.108797$Jm2.28532@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #688098 |
On 6/1/2018 10:39 AM, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/18 6:09 AM, benj wrote: >> On 6/1/2018 12:25 AM, Snit wrote: >>> On 5/31/18 5:49 PM, !Jones wrote: >>>> x-no-idiots: yes >>>> >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 05:22:39 -0700 (Seattle), in talk.politics.guns >>>> Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote: >>>> >>>>> The " well regulated militia ", envisioned in the constitution, >>>>> did not include depressed gunmen in Las Vegas Hotel rooms >>>>> slaughtering concert goers. >>>> >>>> Actually, the "well regulated militia" was well detailed in article >>>> six of our Document of Confederation and ratified in 1781. Article >>>> six is very clear about it and has never been repealed. The second >>>> amendment never redefined a "well regulated militia"; therefore, the >>>> existing definition at the time holds. >>>> >>>> The salient part reads: "[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." >>>> >>>> Where are the arms kept? I assume that a "filed piece" means a "field >>>> piece" or light artillery? But the arms are to be kept "in public >>>> stores". It wasn't about a clock that keeps good time. >>>> >>>> Jones >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. >>>> >>> >>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were >>> laws against what we now call open carry, and even laws against >>> having loaded guns in homes. >>> >>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. >>> >> No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are unconstitutional. >> IN other words states and cities cannot override the constitution when >> it comes to second amendment. This is a recent determination. It's >> called being incorporated. > > First, you might want to look more closely at the Heller case. It makes > it clear there ARE limits. > > <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html> > > It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying > an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement > insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home." That was the original case, fer sure, but the opinion goes well beyond that. > It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying one > around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of acceptance of > "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by > the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes". Which is stated correctly. Miller opinion, noted that 2nd amendment applies to arms relevant to militia. Sporting gear or whatever is not protected. Heller noted that this includes (as you note) arms "in common use for lawful purposes" of which they noted civilian self-defense is one. This therefore includes non-militia arms such as the AR15 but are covered because of the "in common use" for self-defense opinion. Thus, by this decision AR15 as well as the full auto military M16 are clearly protected by the constitution. To say that a citizen cannot own an M16 machine gun is clearly unconstitutional and thus illegal. > It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and > specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon > whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and that > this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the carrying of > firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, > or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of > arms" and it "finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting > the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". Finding support in historical tradition is hardly proof of constitutionality. There is tradition of putting Citizens in concentration camps and using army to dispel those peaceably assembled for redress of grievances. Doesn't make those rights invalid. Since a rights are defined in the constitution it's obvious that the very definition is a limitation. But that limitation does not extend to the arbitrary infringements you seem to be implying. > And keep in mind, this is a decision where the SCOTUS redefined the > second amendment to be more friendly to the modern NRA view. Didn't "redefine" It DEFINED elements that had previously not been addressed. In particular whether the 2nd amendment applies to the states. They ruled it did. So sure that is a determination that is more "NRA-friendly" as you put it. I'd put it as more rights-friendly. I take it you are opposed to rights.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 11:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fndge4Fm511U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688122 |
On 6/1/18 10:29 AM, benj wrote: ... >>>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were >>>> laws against what we now call open carry, and even laws against >>>> having loaded guns in homes. >>>> >>>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. >>>> >>> No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are unconstitutional. >>> IN other words states and cities cannot override the constitution >>> when it comes to second amendment. This is a recent determination. >>> It's called being incorporated. >> >> First, you might want to look more closely at the Heller case. It >> makes it clear there ARE limits. >> >> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html> >> >> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits >> carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock >> requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in >> the home." > > That was the original case, fer sure, but the opinion goes well beyond > that. Would love to hear your view on it. >> It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying >> one around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of >> acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to >> those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful >> purposes". > > Which is stated correctly. Miller opinion, noted that 2nd amendment > applies to arms relevant to militia. Sporting gear or whatever is not > protected. Heller noted that this includes (as you note) arms "in common > use for lawful purposes" of which they noted civilian self-defense is > one. Sure... this was where they engaged in judicial activism and changed the long standing meaning, and may very well be tied to why we have more mass shootings since the time of its passing (I have heard arguments on both sides of this and I do not really take a side). But even then the only context it specified was in the home. > This therefore includes non-militia arms such as the AR15 but are > covered because of the "in common use" for self-defense opinion. Thus, > by this decision AR15 as well as the full auto military M16 are clearly > protected by the constitution. To say that a citizen cannot own an M16 > machine gun is clearly unconstitutional and thus illegal. The gun being referenced in the case was a double-barrel shotgun, not a fully automatic weapon. The Supreme Court has allowed bans even on high capacity weapons. <https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-justices-allow-ban-on-high-capacity-guns> OR <https://goo.gl/bXJRts> But keep in mind to the extent that Heller does back the NRA position, it is an act of judicial activism and NOT the historic meaning of the second amendment. I posted evidence for this before but it has gotten somewhat buried. <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> OR < https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> ----- A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- >> It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and >> specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon >> whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and that >> this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the carrying of >> firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, >> or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale >> of arms" and it "finds support in the historical tradition of >> prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". > > Finding support in historical tradition is hardly proof of > constitutionality. The fact it was not challenged suggests that people of the time did not see it as a violation of the second amendment, but, sure, it is not proof of such. > There is tradition of putting Citizens in > concentration camps and using army to dispel those peaceably assembled > for redress of grievances. Doesn't make those rights invalid. Those things were challenged. Heavily. Does not mean they stopped them, at least in the short term, but they were challenged. > Since a rights are defined in the constitution it's obvious that the > very definition is a limitation. But that limitation does not extend to > the arbitrary infringements you seem to be implying. Limiting "arms" to "guns" is an arbitrary limitation. Why not include nukes and ricin? Because infringements on arms are necessary and a lack of them would be insane. As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national database, and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and you fail to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes it is used in (there should be a reasonable time table for the report). I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not happen with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. That is insane. >> And keep in mind, this is a decision where the SCOTUS redefined the >> second amendment to be more friendly to the modern NRA view. > > Didn't "redefine" It DEFINED elements that had previously not been > addressed. In particular whether the 2nd amendment applies to the > states. They ruled it did. So sure that is a determination that is more > "NRA-friendly" as you put it. I'd put it as more rights-friendly. I take > it you are opposed to rights. I am not opposed to rights but I am against (in general) judicial activism. -- 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 | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 17:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <YMiQC.260177$ll2.146190@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #688127 |
On 6/1/2018 2:09 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/18 10:29 AM, benj wrote: > ... >>>>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were >>>>> laws against what we now call open carry, and even laws against >>>>> having loaded guns in homes. >>>>> >>>>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. >>>>> >>>> No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are unconstitutional. >>>> IN other words states and cities cannot override the constitution >>>> when it comes to second amendment. This is a recent determination. >>>> It's called being incorporated. >>> >>> First, you might want to look more closely at the Heller case. It >>> makes it clear there ARE limits. >>> >>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html> >>> >>> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits >>> carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock >>> requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in >>> the home." >> >> That was the original case, fer sure, but the opinion goes well beyond >> that. > > Would love to hear your view on it. > >>> It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying >>> one around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of >>> acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies >>> to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful >>> purposes". >> >> Which is stated correctly. Miller opinion, noted that 2nd amendment >> applies to arms relevant to militia. Sporting gear or whatever is not >> protected. Heller noted that this includes (as you note) arms "in >> common use for lawful purposes" of which they noted civilian >> self-defense is one. > > Sure... this was where they engaged in judicial activism and changed the > long standing meaning, and may very well be tied to why we have more > mass shootings since the time of its passing (I have heard arguments on > both sides of this and I do not really take a side). So rendering an opinion is "judicial activism". I don't think so. They Clarified previous opinion not replaced it. I've heard that these decisions may well not only have nothing to do with mass shootings but may have actually caused them. > But even then the only context it specified was in the home. >> This therefore includes non-militia arms such as the AR15 but are >> covered because of the "in common use" for self-defense opinion. Thus, >> by this decision AR15 as well as the full auto military M16 are >> clearly protected by the constitution. To say that a citizen cannot >> own an M16 machine gun is clearly unconstitutional and thus illegal. > > The gun being referenced in the case was a double-barrel shotgun, not a > fully automatic weapon. The Supreme Court has allowed bans even on high > capacity weapons. The viewpoint of the court is clear. They had no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun (and it was double-barreled! Excellent research counselor!) had any relationship to a militia. OF course that does mean it did not, just that the court had no evidence (miller was dead so no evidence was presented. The criterion was clearly stated and the decision provided the example that gear NOT related to militia use use was to be questioned. > <https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-justices-allow-ban-on-high-capacity-guns> > OR <https://goo.gl/bXJRts> Fake news. Headline "spun" by Bradys and Bloombergs. Refusal to hear a case does not count as any viewpoint taken by the court. > But keep in mind to the extent that Heller does back the NRA position, > it is an act of judicial activism and NOT the historic meaning of the > second amendment. I posted evidence for this before but it has gotten > somewhat buried. Historic meaning (Which comes from "rights of Englishmen" is not your so-called "right" for those in power to conscript you into a standing army. Even the dissent of the SC said that is nonsense. > <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> > OR < > https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> > ----- > A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding Era > American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, > yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of Early > Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows > 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, > that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th > and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering or > organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural > meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we > shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked > comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or > target practice. > ----- > >>> It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and >>> specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon >>> whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and >>> that this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the carrying >>> of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government >>> buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the >>> commercial sale of arms" and it "finds support in the historical >>> tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". >> >> Finding support in historical tradition is hardly proof of >> constitutionality. > > The fact it was not challenged suggests that people of the time did not > see it as a violation of the second amendment, but, sure, it is not > proof of such. Means no such thing. If I don't challenge you then does that mean I agree with your interpretations of these things? No. >> There is tradition of putting Citizens in concentration camps and >> using army to dispel those peaceably assembled for redress of >> grievances. Doesn't make those rights invalid. > > Those things were challenged. Heavily. Does not mean they stopped them, > at least in the short term, but they were challenged. So in your mind ONLY if something is challenged can one say it may be wrong. IN other words your argument is that if you kill some one or rob them and get away with it, then there was no crime? >> Since a rights are defined in the constitution it's obvious that the >> very definition is a limitation. But that limitation does not extend >> to the arbitrary infringements you seem to be implying. > > Limiting "arms" to "guns" is an arbitrary limitation. Why not include > nukes and ricin? Because infringements on arms are necessary and a lack > of them would be insane. Arms are not in any way limited to guns though important because today they are a soldier's standard equipment which the second Amendment protects just as before swords were and today one can argue that arms includes knives and even hand grenades. Note those who ridicule the 2nd Amendment saying it should allow people to have Atomic bombs are wrong. Today (maybe not tomorrow) atomic bombs are NOT standard equipment issued to general soldiers of the day. > As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong > opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national database, > and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and you fail to > report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes it is used in (there > should be a reasonable time table for the report). So you think that registration of citizen and their property is a proper function of a free people? This sounds like Bloomberg/Brady interpretations of freedom. > I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not happen > with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. That is insane. Should the government be paying for political propaganda disguised as 'science"? Should those in power be using tax money to generate political propaganda for what could well be illegal (unconstitutional) laws? This is not OUR system. Do you favor it? >>> And keep in mind, this is a decision where the SCOTUS redefined the >>> second amendment to be more friendly to the modern NRA view. >> >> Didn't "redefine" It DEFINED elements that had previously not been >> addressed. In particular whether the 2nd amendment applies to the >> states. They ruled it did. So sure that is a determination that is >> more "NRA-friendly" as you put it. I'd put it as more rights-friendly. >> I take it you are opposed to rights. > > I am not opposed to rights but I am against (in general) judicial activism. Well then we agree on that much, don't we? I call judicial activism where courts are used to MAKE laws rather than simply saying if the current laws pass muster. IF the SC says a law is garbage, then that law is immediately null and void. It's up to those who passed it to pass a law that does pass constitutional muster. If the court says nothing, that does NOT mean that they side with the current lower court decision. It only means they have not spoken on the issue. There are LOTS of issues on which they have NOT spoken such as the taxing of a right like the machine gun tax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 14:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fndsgtFoe3fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688152 |
On 6/1/18 2:20 PM, benj wrote: > On 6/1/2018 2:09 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/1/18 10:29 AM, benj wrote: >> ... >>>>>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were >>>>>> laws against what we now call open carry, and even laws against >>>>>> having loaded guns in homes. >>>>>> >>>>>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. >>>>>> >>>>> No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are unconstitutional. >>>>> IN other words states and cities cannot override the constitution >>>>> when it comes to second amendment. This is a recent determination. >>>>> It's called being incorporated. >>>> >>>> First, you might want to look more closely at the Heller case. It >>>> makes it clear there ARE limits. >>>> >>>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html> >>>> >>>> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits >>>> carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock >>>> requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms >>>> in the home." >>> >>> That was the original case, fer sure, but the opinion goes well >>> beyond that. >> >> Would love to hear your view on it. >> >>>> It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying >>>> one around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of >>>> acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies >>>> to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful >>>> purposes". >>> >>> Which is stated correctly. Miller opinion, noted that 2nd amendment >>> applies to arms relevant to militia. Sporting gear or whatever is not >>> protected. Heller noted that this includes (as you note) arms "in >>> common use for lawful purposes" of which they noted civilian >>> self-defense is one. >> >> Sure... this was where they engaged in judicial activism and changed >> the long standing meaning, and may very well be tied to why we have >> more mass shootings since the time of its passing (I have heard >> arguments on both sides of this and I do not really take a side). > > So rendering an opinion is "judicial activism". Well, rendering an opinion is a required requisite for it, I would think, but by itself it is not. What would give you that idea? Seems you are working to twist my words... much as you wish to do so with the second amendment. I have little desire for such a conversation. > I don't think so. They > Clarified previous opinion not replaced it. I've heard that these > decisions may well not only have nothing to do with mass shootings but > may have actually caused them. Interesting how you think the law can be the "cause" of such shootings... I tend to blame the shooters for their own actions. To be fair there are also others who help support these shooters, such as the NRA and Republicans (in general) and they should be held accountable for their actions as well. >> But even then the only context it specified was in the home. > >>> This therefore includes non-militia arms such as the AR15 but are >>> covered because of the "in common use" for self-defense opinion. >>> Thus, by this decision AR15 as well as the full auto military M16 are >>> clearly protected by the constitution. To say that a citizen cannot >>> own an M16 machine gun is clearly unconstitutional and thus illegal. >> >> The gun being referenced in the case was a double-barrel shotgun, not >> a fully automatic weapon. The Supreme Court has allowed bans even on >> high capacity weapons. > > The viewpoint of the court is clear. They had no evidence that a > sawed-off shotgun (and it was double-barreled! Excellent research > counselor!) had any relationship to a militia. OF course that does mean > it did not, just that the court had no evidence (miller was dead so no > evidence was presented. The criterion was clearly stated and the > decision provided the example that gear NOT related to militia use use > was to be questioned. You left out a key component: home use. Meanwhile other laws have restricted having loaded weapons in your home and were never challenged on second amendment grounds. But, sure, the judicial activism of the Heller decision, which was split 5:4, does define things differently than they were before. >> <https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-justices-allow-ban-on-high-capacity-guns> >> OR <https://goo.gl/bXJRts> > > Fake news. Headline "spun" by Bradys and Bloombergs. > Refusal to hear a case does not count as any viewpoint taken by the court. There was no dissent. The court showed no issue with such bans. They did not even feel it was worth debating! >> But keep in mind to the extent that Heller does back the NRA position, >> it is an act of judicial activism and NOT the historic meaning of the >> second amendment. I posted evidence for this before but it has gotten >> somewhat buried. > > Historic meaning (Which comes from "rights of Englishmen" is not your > so-called "right" for those in power to conscript you into a standing > army. Even the dissent of the SC said that is nonsense. Not sure what you are getting at here. I am noting that the meaning of the law matters. Are you suggesting it should not? >> <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> >> OR < >> https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >> ----- >> A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding >> Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million >> words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of >> Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion >> words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 >> duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of >> âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât >> refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases >> confirm that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day >> was military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear >> armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal >> self-defense, hunting or target practice. >> ----- >> >>>> It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and >>>> specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon >>>> whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and >>>> that this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the carrying >>>> of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government >>>> buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the >>>> commercial sale of arms" and it "finds support in the historical >>>> tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual >>>> weapons". >>> >>> Finding support in historical tradition is hardly proof of >>> constitutionality. >> >> The fact it was not challenged suggests that people of the time did >> not see it as a violation of the second amendment, but, sure, it is >> not proof of such. > > Means no such thing. If I don't challenge you then does that mean I > agree with your interpretations of these things? No. Nor did anyone suggest it does. Again: you are seeking to twist words. Such games are not really of interest to me. Curious: what is your goal here? To convince me that the judicial activism engaged by the SCOTUS is a good thing? Can you clarify? >>> There is tradition of putting Citizens in concentration camps and >>> using army to dispel those peaceably assembled for redress of >>> grievances. Doesn't make those rights invalid. >> >> Those things were challenged. Heavily. Does not mean they stopped >> them, at least in the short term, but they were challenged. > > So in your mind ONLY if something is challenged can one say it may be > wrong. IN other words your argument is that if you kill some one or rob > them and get away with it, then there was no crime? Again: you seeking to twist my words does not benefit the conversation. >>> Since a rights are defined in the constitution it's obvious that the >>> very definition is a limitation. But that limitation does not extend >>> to the arbitrary infringements you seem to be implying. >> >> Limiting "arms" to "guns" is an arbitrary limitation. Why not include >> nukes and ricin? Because infringements on arms are necessary and a >> lack of them would be insane. > > Arms are not in any way limited to guns though important because today > they are a soldier's standard equipment which the second Amendment > protects just as before swords were and today one can argue that arms > includes knives and even hand grenades. Note those who ridicule the 2nd > Amendment saying it should allow people to have Atomic bombs are wrong. > Today (maybe not tomorrow) atomic bombs are NOT standard equipment > issued to general soldiers of the day. The term "arms" means more than just what soldiers carry. >> As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong >> opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national >> database, and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and >> you fail to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes it is >> used in (there should be a reasonable time table for the report). > > So you think that registration of citizen and their property is a proper > function of a free people? This sounds like Bloomberg/Brady > interpretations of freedom. Well, we have SSN... a form of "registration". But, sure, we have licenses and registrations for cars... no reason we should not have reasonable checks on other dangerous devices. Sorta insane not to, really. >> I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not happen >> with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. That is insane. > > Should the government be paying for political propaganda disguised as > 'science"? Should those in power be using tax money to generate > political propaganda for what could well be illegal (unconstitutional) > laws? This is not OUR system. Do you favor it? More twisting from you. Not interested. >>>> And keep in mind, this is a decision where the SCOTUS redefined the >>>> second amendment to be more friendly to the modern NRA view. >>> >>> Didn't "redefine" It DEFINED elements that had previously not been >>> addressed. In particular whether the 2nd amendment applies to the >>> states. They ruled it did. So sure that is a determination that is >>> more "NRA-friendly" as you put it. I'd put it as more >>> rights-friendly. I take it you are opposed to rights. >> >> I am not opposed to rights but I am against (in general) judicial >> activism. > > Well then we agree on that much, don't we? I call judicial activism > where courts are used to MAKE laws rather than simply saying if the > current laws pass muster. Such as the Heller case where they re-interpreted the second amendment instead of sticking with the actual meaning that had existed before. Sure. > IF the SC says a law is garbage, then that law > is immediately null and void. It's up to those who passed it to pass a > law that does pass constitutional muster. If the court says nothing, > that does NOT mean that they side with the current lower court decision. Well, if they say it is not worthy of even debating it that does send a pretty strong message, esp. for such a hot topic. > It only means they have not spoken on the issue. There are LOTS of > issues on which they have NOT spoken such as the taxing of a right like > the machine gun tax. > > -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <petc9n$e7b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688127 |
In news:fndge4Fm511U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/1/18 10:29 AM, benj wrote: > ... >>>>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were >>>>> laws against what we now call open carry, and even laws against >>>>> having loaded guns in homes. >>>>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. >>>> No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are unconstitutional. >>>> IN other words states and cities cannot override the constitution >>>> when it comes to second amendment. This is a recent determination. >>>> It's called being incorporated. >>> First, you might want to look more closely at the Heller case. It >>> makes it clear there ARE limits. >>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html> >>> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits >>> carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock >>> requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms >>> in the home." >> That was the original case, fer sure, but the opinion goes well >> beyond that. > Would love to hear your view on it. >>> It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying >>> one around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of >>> acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies >>> to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful >>> purposes". >> Which is stated correctly. Miller opinion, noted that 2nd amendment >> applies to arms relevant to militia. Sporting gear or whatever is not >> protected. Heller noted that this includes (as you note) arms "in >> common use for lawful purposes" of which they noted civilian >> self-defense is one. > Sure... this was where they engaged in judicial activism and changed the > long standing meaning, and may very well be tied to why we have more > mass shootings since the time of its passing (I have heard arguments > on both sides of this and I do not really take a side). > But even then the only context it specified was in the home. In the most notable case before Heller, United States vs Miller, Miller's right to keep and bear arms outside his home was never disputed, only his choice of arm. >> This therefore includes non-militia arms such as the AR15 but are >> covered because of the "in common use" for self-defense opinion. >> Thus, by this decision AR15 as well as the full auto military M16 >> are clearly protected by the constitution. To say that a citizen >> cannot own an M16 machine gun is clearly unconstitutional and thus >> illegal. > The gun being referenced in the case was a double-barrel shotgun, not a > fully automatic weapon. The Supreme Court has allowed bans even on high > capacity weapons. > <https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-justices-allow-ban-on-high-capacity-guns> > OR <https://goo.gl/bXJRts> > But keep in mind to the extent that Heller does back the NRA position, > it is an act of judicial activism and NOT the historic meaning of the > second amendment. I posted evidence for this before but it has gotten > somewhat buried. > <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> > OR < > https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> > ----- > 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. > ----- >>> It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and >>> specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon >>> whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and >>> that this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the >>> carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and >>> government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and >>> qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" and it "finds >>> support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of >>> dangerous and unusual weapons". >> Finding support in historical tradition is hardly proof of >> constitutionality. > The fact it was not challenged suggests that people of the time did not > see it as a violation of the second amendment, but, sure, it is not > proof of such. >> There is tradition of putting Citizens in >> concentration camps and using army to dispel those peaceably >> assembled for redress of grievances. Doesn't make those rights >> invalid. > Those things were challenged. Heavily. Does not mean they stopped them, > at least in the short term, but they were challenged. >> Since a rights are defined in the constitution it's obvious that the >> very definition is a limitation. But that limitation does not extend >> to the arbitrary infringements you seem to be implying. > Limiting "arms" to "guns" is an arbitrary limitation. Why not include > nukes and ricin? Because infringements on arms are necessary and a > lack of them would be insane. > As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong > opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national > database, ... Is that possible without a national registry? > ...and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and you fail > to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes it is used in > (there should be a reasonable time table for the report). > I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not happen > with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. That is > insane. If you're referring to the Dickey amendment, you're wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 23:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fneqvgFtdvgU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688252 |
On 6/1/18 11:08 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fndge4Fm511U1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/1/18 10:29 AM, benj wrote: > >> ... >>>>>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there were >>>>>> laws against what we now call open carry, and even laws against >>>>>> having loaded guns in homes. > >>>>>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. > >>>>> No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are unconstitutional. >>>>> IN other words states and cities cannot override the constitution >>>>> when it comes to second amendment. This is a recent determination. >>>>> It's called being incorporated. > >>>> First, you might want to look more closely at the Heller case. It >>>> makes it clear there ARE limits. > >>>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html> > >>>> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits >>>> carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock >>>> requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms >>>> in the home." > >>> That was the original case, fer sure, but the opinion goes well >>> beyond that. > >> Would love to hear your view on it. > >>>> It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about carrying >>>> one around, no less other arms. It even specifically speaks of >>>> acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies >>>> to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful >>>> purposes". > >>> Which is stated correctly. Miller opinion, noted that 2nd amendment >>> applies to arms relevant to militia. Sporting gear or whatever is not >>> protected. Heller noted that this includes (as you note) arms "in >>> common use for lawful purposes" of which they noted civilian >>> self-defense is one. > >> Sure... this was where they engaged in judicial activism and changed the >> long standing meaning, and may very well be tied to why we have more >> mass shootings since the time of its passing (I have heard arguments >> on both sides of this and I do not really take a side). > >> But even then the only context it specified was in the home. > > In the most notable case before Heller, United States vs Miller, Miller's right to keep and bear > arms outside his home was never disputed, only his choice of arm. Wasn't that about a sword? >>> This therefore includes non-militia arms such as the AR15 but are >>> covered because of the "in common use" for self-defense opinion. >>> Thus, by this decision AR15 as well as the full auto military M16 >>> are clearly protected by the constitution. To say that a citizen >>> cannot own an M16 machine gun is clearly unconstitutional and thus >>> illegal. > >> The gun being referenced in the case was a double-barrel shotgun, not a >> fully automatic weapon. The Supreme Court has allowed bans even on high >> capacity weapons. > >> <https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-justices-allow-ban-on-high-capacity-guns> >> OR <https://goo.gl/bXJRts> > >> But keep in mind to the extent that Heller does back the NRA position, >> it is an act of judicial activism and NOT the historic meaning of the >> second amendment. I posted evidence for this before but it has gotten >> somewhat buried. > >> <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> >> OR < >> https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >> ----- >> 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. >> ----- > >>>> It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and >>>> specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon >>>> whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and >>>> that this does not mean we cannot have "laws forbidding the >>>> carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and >>>> government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and >>>> qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" and it "finds >>>> support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of >>>> dangerous and unusual weapons". > >>> Finding support in historical tradition is hardly proof of >>> constitutionality. > >> The fact it was not challenged suggests that people of the time did not >> see it as a violation of the second amendment, but, sure, it is not >> proof of such. > >>> There is tradition of putting Citizens in >>> concentration camps and using army to dispel those peaceably >>> assembled for redress of grievances. Doesn't make those rights >>> invalid. > >> Those things were challenged. Heavily. Does not mean they stopped them, >> at least in the short term, but they were challenged. > >>> Since a rights are defined in the constitution it's obvious that the >>> very definition is a limitation. But that limitation does not extend >>> to the arbitrary infringements you seem to be implying. > >> Limiting "arms" to "guns" is an arbitrary limitation. Why not include >> nukes and ricin? Because infringements on arms are necessary and a >> lack of them would be insane. > >> As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong >> opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national >> database, ... > > Is that possible without a national registry? Yes, though I have no issue with a registry, either. >> ...and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and you fail >> to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes it is used in >> (there should be a reasonable time table for the report). > >> I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not happen >> with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. That is >> insane. > > If you're referring to the Dickey amendment, you're wrong. It effectively blocked such research. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 11:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <peunqt$gka$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688260 |
In news:fneqvgFtdvgU7@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/1/18 11:08 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fndge4Fm511U1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/1/18 10:29 AM, benj wrote: >>> ... >>>>>>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there >>>>>>> were laws against what we now call open carry, and even laws >>>>>>> against having loaded guns in homes. >>>>>>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. >>>>>> No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are >>>>>> unconstitutional. IN other words states and cities cannot >>>>>> override the constitution when it comes to second amendment. >>>>>> This is a recent determination. It's called being incorporated. >>>>> First, you might want to look more closely at the Heller case. It >>>>> makes it clear there ARE limits. >>>>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html> >>>>> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits >>>>> carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock >>>>> requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms >>>>> in the home." >>>> That was the original case, fer sure, but the opinion goes well >>>> beyond that. >>> Would love to hear your view on it. >>>>> It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about >>>>> carrying one around, no less other arms. It even specifically >>>>> speaks of acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the >>>>> right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common >>>>> use for lawful purposes". >>>> Which is stated correctly. Miller opinion, noted that 2nd amendment >>>> applies to arms relevant to militia. Sporting gear or whatever is >>>> not protected. Heller noted that this includes (as you note) arms >>>> "in common use for lawful purposes" of which they noted civilian >>>> self-defense is one. >>> Sure... this was where they engaged in judicial activism and >>> changed the long standing meaning, and may very well be tied to why >>> we have more mass shootings since the time of its passing (I have >>> heard arguments on both sides of this and I do not really take a side). >>> But even then the only context it specified was in the home. >> In the most notable case before Heller, United States vs Miller, >> Miller's right to keep and bear arms outside his home was never >> disputed, only his choice of arm. > Wasn't that about a sword? What are you smoking, dude? >>>> This therefore includes non-militia arms such as the AR15 but are >>>> covered because of the "in common use" for self-defense opinion. >>>> Thus, by this decision AR15 as well as the full auto military M16 >>>> are clearly protected by the constitution. To say that a citizen >>>> cannot own an M16 machine gun is clearly unconstitutional and thus >>>> illegal. >>> The gun being referenced in the case was a double-barrel shotgun, >>> not a fully automatic weapon. The Supreme Court has allowed bans >>> even on high capacity weapons. >>> <https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-justices-allow-ban-on-high-capacity-guns> >>> OR <https://goo.gl/bXJRts> >>> But keep in mind to the extent that Heller does back the NRA >>> position, it is an act of judicial activism and NOT the historic >>> meaning of the second amendment. I posted evidence for this before >>> but it has gotten somewhat buried. >>> <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> >>> OR < >>> https://goo.gl/N9wtKB> >>> ----- >>> 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. ----- >>>>> It also notes that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" >>>>> and specifically states "It is not a right to keep and carry any >>>>> weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever >>>>> purpose" and that this does not mean we cannot have "laws >>>>> forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as >>>>> schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and >>>>> qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" and it "finds >>>>> support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of >>>>> dangerous and unusual weapons". >>>> Finding support in historical tradition is hardly proof of constitutionality. >>> The fact it was not challenged suggests that people of the time did >>> not see it as a violation of the second amendment, but, sure, it is >>> not proof of such. >>>> There is tradition of putting Citizens in >>>> concentration camps and using army to dispel those peaceably >>>> assembled for redress of grievances. Doesn't make those rights >>>> invalid. >>> Those things were challenged. Heavily. Does not mean they stopped >>> them, at least in the short term, but they were challenged. >>>> Since a rights are defined in the constitution it's obvious that >>>> the very definition is a limitation. But that limitation does not >>>> extend to the arbitrary infringements you seem to be implying. >>> Limiting "arms" to "guns" is an arbitrary limitation. Why not >>> include nukes and ricin? Because infringements on arms are >>> necessary and a lack of them would be insane. >>> As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong >>> opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national >>> database, ... >> Is that possible without a national registry? > Yes, though I have no issue with a registry, either. That's a non-starter. Even the peaceful Canucks abandoned their attempt due to massive non-compliance. >>> ...and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and you >>> fail to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes it is >>> used in (there should be a reasonable time table for the report). >>> I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not >>> happen with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. That >>> is insane. >> If you're referring to the Dickey amendment, you're wrong. > It effectively blocked such research. Only if they couldn't refrain from advocating more gun control. CDC has paid for such research since the Dickey amendment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 11:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fng6o8F774pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688308 |
On 6/2/18 11:26 AM, max headroom wrote: ... >>> In the most notable case before Heller, United States vs Miller, >>> Miller's right to keep and bear arms outside his home was never >>> disputed, only his choice of arm. > >> Wasn't that about a sword? > > What are you smoking, dude? Sorry, I was thinking of Bliss v. Commonwealth. Yes, I think Heller was the first case where the meaning of "bear arms" was twisted to mean something other than how it is commonly used, and the militia reference was ignored. Fair enough. ... >>>> As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong >>>> opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national >>>> database, ... > >>> Is that possible without a national registry? > >> Yes, though I have no issue with a registry, either. > > That's a non-starter. Even the peaceful Canucks abandoned their attempt due to massive > non-compliance. A registry is a separate issue. No reason to not have a database. Heck, even the NRA backs much of that! >>>> ...and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and you >>>> fail to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes it is >>>> used in (there should be a reasonable time table for the report). > >>>> I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not >>>> happen with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. That >>>> is insane. > >>> If you're referring to the Dickey amendment, you're wrong. > >> It effectively blocked such research. > > Only if they couldn't refrain from advocating more gun control. > > CDC has paid for such research since the Dickey amendment. Little research has been done... the NRA is terrified evidence will show that their claims of how to handle the big issue the US has is not based on facts. I support evidence-based policy... we NEED to do more research to get better evidence. Do you know how little research is done here compared to, say, vehicular deaths and injuries? This is really not tat complex: pools, food, cars, roads, ladders, air, water, and much more have research done on them and the government works (sometimes poorly) to fulfill its duty to promote the general welfare (research and policies which, at least in theory, are based on the evidence found... NOT saying we do that well). With guns, though, this is done even LESS well. This is largely because the NRA, an organization that benefits from mass shootings and other gun violence and terrorism, has so much control in our legislative process. My view is we should not allow the NRA to fund our representatives (nor allow Planned Parenthood or any other special interest... this is not a left vs. right issue to me). Until or unless we actually have the government representing the people (gun owners included) we will not be able to move forward on this issue or many others in a reasonable way. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 14:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pev2m9$mdg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688310 |
In news:fng6o8F774pU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/2/18 11:26 AM, max headroom wrote: > ... >>>> In the most notable case before Heller, United States vs Miller, >>>> Miller's right to keep and bear arms outside his home was never >>>> disputed, only his choice of arm. >>> Wasn't that about a sword? >> What are you smoking, dude? > Sorry, I was thinking of Bliss v. Commonwealth. > Yes, I think Heller was the first case where the meaning of "bear arms" > was twisted to mean something other than how it is commonly used, and > the militia reference was ignored. Fair enough. So you admit your cited opinion piece in WAPO was in error. > ... >>>>> As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong >>>>> opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national >>>>> database, ... >>>> Is that possible without a national registry? >>> Yes, though I have no issue with a registry, either. >> That's a non-starter. Even the peaceful Canucks abandoned their >> attempt due to massive non-compliance. > A registry is a separate issue. No reason to not have a database. Heck, > even the NRA backs much of that! A database of what? The statutes are in place to list prohibited buyers already. >>>>> ...and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and >>>>> you fail to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes >>>>> it is used in (there should be a reasonable time table for the >>>>> report). >>>>> I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not >>>>> happen with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. >>>>> That is insane. >>>> If you're referring to the Dickey amendment, you're wrong. >>> It effectively blocked such research. >> Only if they couldn't refrain from advocating more gun control. >> CDC has paid for such research since the Dickey amendment. > Little research has been done... Not because of Dickey. > ... the NRA is terrified evidence will show that their claims of how to handle the big issue the > US has is not based on facts. > I support evidence-based policy... we NEED to do more research to get > better evidence. Do you know how little research is done here compared > to, say, vehicular deaths and injuries? > This is really not tat complex: pools, food, cars, roads, ladders, air, water, and much more have > research done on them and the government works (sometimes poorly) to fulfill its duty to promote > the general welfare (research and policies which, at least in theory, are based on the evidence > found... NOT saying we do that well). The government's job is to protect the borders and deliver the mail. That's all the Constitution specifies. > With guns, though, this is done even LESS well. This is largely because the NRA, an organization > that benefits from mass shootings and other gun violence and terrorism, has so much control in our > legislative process. ... Ok, now you've trotted off into Lalaland. > My view is we should not allow the NRA to fund our representatives (nor > allow Planned Parenthood or any other special interest... this is not a > left vs. right issue to me). Nor NEA or SEIU or AFL-CIO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 20:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <hLGQC.52183$Kp4.35584@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #688351 |
On 6/2/2018 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fng6o8F774pU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/2/18 11:26 AM, max headroom wrote: >> ... >>>>> In the most notable case before Heller, United States vs Miller, >>>>> Miller's right to keep and bear arms outside his home was never >>>>> disputed, only his choice of arm. > >>>> Wasn't that about a sword? > >>> What are you smoking, dude? > >> Sorry, I was thinking of Bliss v. Commonwealth. > >> Yes, I think Heller was the first case where the meaning of "bear arms" >> was twisted to mean something other than how it is commonly used, and >> the militia reference was ignored. Fair enough. > > So you admit your cited opinion piece in WAPO was in error. > >> ... >>>>>> As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong >>>>>> opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national >>>>>> database, ... > >>>>> Is that possible without a national registry? > >>>> Yes, though I have no issue with a registry, either. > >>> That's a non-starter. Even the peaceful Canucks abandoned their >>> attempt due to massive non-compliance. > >> A registry is a separate issue. No reason to not have a database. Heck, >> even the NRA backs much of that! > > A database of what? The statutes are in place to list prohibited buyers already. > >>>>>> ...and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and >>>>>> you fail to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes >>>>>> it is used in (there should be a reasonable time table for the >>>>>> report). > >>>>>> I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not >>>>>> happen with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. >>>>>> That is insane. > >>>>> If you're referring to the Dickey amendment, you're wrong. > >>>> It effectively blocked such research. > >>> Only if they couldn't refrain from advocating more gun control. > >>> CDC has paid for such research since the Dickey amendment. > >> Little research has been done... > > Not because of Dickey. > >> ... the NRA is terrified evidence will show that their claims of how to handle the big issue the >> US has is not based on facts. > >> I support evidence-based policy... we NEED to do more research to get >> better evidence. Do you know how little research is done here compared >> to, say, vehicular deaths and injuries? > >> This is really not tat complex: pools, food, cars, roads, ladders, air, water, and much more have >> research done on them and the government works (sometimes poorly) to fulfill its duty to promote >> the general welfare (research and policies which, at least in theory, are based on the evidence >> found... NOT saying we do that well). > > The government's job is to protect the borders and deliver the mail. That's all the Constitution > specifies. > >> With guns, though, this is done even LESS well. This is largely because the NRA, an organization >> that benefits from mass shootings and other gun violence and terrorism, has so much control in our >> legislative process. ... > > Ok, now you've trotted off into Lalaland. For sure. One has to wonder just HOW the NRA benefits from Mass shootings and terrorism? Shooters are all NRA members? That's funny NO mass shooter has EVER been shown to have an NRA card. Usually they are nutjob democrats. On the other hand what DOES benefit the NRA and gun industry are liberals like those here calling for repeal of all constitutional protections of rights (you can't repeal rights) that scare the public into buying guns and joining the NRA. Thanks for the good work, Snit! >> My view is we should not allow the NRA to fund our representatives (nor >> allow Planned Parenthood or any other special interest... this is not a >> left vs. right issue to me). > > Nor NEA or SEIU or AFL-CIO. And this is not a left-right issue. The issue is are people only allowed to exercise political activity alone as solitary figures. How does it make sense that if a group of people of similar political beliefs want to form a group and hold meetings and discussions and even give their opinion on the various issues they are interested in including various candidates for office, that they can INDIVIDUALLY hold these opinions and do these activities, but as a group it is somehow forbidden? The issue is not WHAT their political beliefs are but rather only the issue if they choose to peaceably assemble as a group to engage in political activities is that somehow unconstitutional? Perhaps SNIT (and rest of us) should be banned from coming together in a group here in the internet to engage in political activity? Or is it the handing out of membership cards that makes all the difference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fngs48Fb1d7U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688374 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 6/2/2018 5:32 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fng6o8F774pU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> On 6/2/18 11:26 AM, max headroom wrote: >>> ... >>>>>> In the most notable case before Heller, United States vs Miller, >>>>>> Miller's right to keep and bear arms outside his home was never >>>>>> disputed, only his choice of arm. >> >>>>> Wasn't that about a sword? >> >>>> What are you smoking, dude? >> >>> Sorry, I was thinking of Bliss v. Commonwealth. >> >>> Yes, I think Heller was the first case where the meaning of "bear arms" >>> was twisted to mean something other than how it is commonly used, and >>> the militia reference was ignored. Fair enough. >> >> So you admit your cited opinion piece in WAPO was in error. >> >>> ... >>>>>>> As far as where those limits should be, however, I have no strong >>>>>>> opinion. I do back strong background checks tied to a national >>>>>>> database, ... >> >>>>>> Is that possible without a national registry? >> >>>>> Yes, though I have no issue with a registry, either. >> >>>> That's a non-starter. Even the peaceful Canucks abandoned their >>>> attempt due to massive non-compliance. >> >>> A registry is a separate issue. No reason to not have a database. Heck, >>> even the NRA backs much of that! >> >> A database of what? The statutes are in place to list prohibited buyers already. >> >>>>>>> ...and accountability for gun owners. If your gun is stolen and >>>>>>> you fail to report it then you are also tied to whatever crimes >>>>>>> it is used in (there should be a reasonable time table for the >>>>>>> report). >> >>>>>>> I also am heavily against the blocking of research... does not >>>>>>> happen with cars or pools or falling hazards -- but does guns. >>>>>>> That is insane. >> >>>>>> If you're referring to the Dickey amendment, you're wrong. >> >>>>> It effectively blocked such research. >> >>>> Only if they couldn't refrain from advocating more gun control. >> >>>> CDC has paid for such research since the Dickey amendment. >> >>> Little research has been done... >> >> Not because of Dickey. >> >>> ... the NRA is terrified evidence will show that their claims of how to >>> handle the big issue the >>> US has is not based on facts. >> >>> I support evidence-based policy... we NEED to do more research to get >>> better evidence. Do you know how little research is done here compared >>> to, say, vehicular deaths and injuries? >> >>> This is really not tat complex: pools, food, cars, roads, ladders, air, >>> water, and much more have >>> research done on them and the government works (sometimes poorly) to >>> fulfill its duty to promote >>> the general welfare (research and policies which, at least in theory, >>> are based on the evidence >>> found... NOT saying we do that well). >> >> The government's job is to protect the borders and deliver the mail. >> That's all the Constitution >> specifies. >> >>> With guns, though, this is done even LESS well. This is largely because >>> the NRA, an organization >>> that benefits from mass shootings and other gun violence and terrorism, >>> has so much control in our >>> legislative process. ... >> >> Ok, now you've trotted off into Lalaland. > > For sure. One has to wonder just HOW the NRA benefits from Mass > shootings and terrorism? Shooters are all NRA members? That's funny NO > mass shooter has EVER been shown to have an NRA card. Usually they are > nutjob democrats. On the other hand what DOES benefit the NRA and gun > industry are liberals like those here calling for repeal of all > constitutional protections of rights (you can't repeal rights) that > scare the public into buying guns and joining the NRA. Thanks for the > good work, Snit! > > > >>> My view is we should not allow the NRA to fund our representatives (nor >>> allow Planned Parenthood or any other special interest... this is not a >>> left vs. right issue to me). >> >> Nor NEA or SEIU or AFL-CIO. > > And this is not a left-right issue. The issue is are people only allowed > to exercise political activity alone as solitary figures. How does it > make sense that if a group of people of similar political beliefs want > to form a group and hold meetings and discussions and even give their > opinion on the various issues they are interested in including various > candidates for office, that they can INDIVIDUALLY hold these opinions > and do these activities, but as a group it is somehow forbidden? > > The issue is not WHAT their political beliefs are but rather only the > issue if they choose to peaceably assemble as a group to engage in > political activities is that somehow unconstitutional? > > Perhaps SNIT (and rest of us) should be banned from coming together in a > group here in the internet to engage in political activity? Or is it the > handing out of membership cards that makes all the difference? > I am saying the people should be in charge, not just the wealthy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 17:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fngsnmFb4h3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688374 |
On 6/2/18 5:37 PM, benj wrote: ... >> Ok, now you've trotted off into Lalaland. > > For sure. One has to wonder just HOW the NRA benefits from Mass > shootings and terrorism? Massive donations. I am happy to show evidence of this... though this whole debate is so boringly predictable: a bunch of gun nuts want special entitlements and do not care how they have to twist language and blame others to get it. Nothing new here at all. > Shooters are all NRA members? Why would you think that? I know of NO evidence that suggests any such thing. > That's funny NO > mass shooter has EVER been shown to have an NRA card. So why bring up such an idea? Oh. As I said gun nuts will repeatedly play games, change topics, and just flat out lie. Not all, of course, but when online it is hard to avoid such insane arguments. > Usually they are > nutjob democrats. On the other hand what DOES benefit the NRA and gun > industry are liberals like those here calling for repeal of all > constitutional protections of rights (you can't repeal rights) that > scare the public into buying guns and joining the NRA. Thanks for the > good work, Snit! What are you even talking about? What repeal have I called for? Seriously, NONE of what you just posted applied to anything I said. Not a word. Your games are a great example of what I was talking about. >>> My view is we should not allow the NRA to fund our representatives (nor >>> allow Planned Parenthood or any other special interest... this is not a >>> left vs. right issue to me). >> >> Nor NEA or SEIU or AFL-CIO. > > And this is not a left-right issue. The issue is are people only allowed > to exercise political activity alone as solitary figures. How does it > make sense that if a group of people of similar political beliefs want > to form a group and hold meetings and discussions and even give their > opinion on the various issues they are interested in including various > candidates for office, that they can INDIVIDUALLY hold these opinions > and do these activities, but as a group it is somehow forbidden? > > The issue is not WHAT their political beliefs are but rather only the > issue if they choose to peaceably assemble as a group to engage in > political activities is that somehow unconstitutional? > > Perhaps SNIT (and rest of us) should be banned from coming together in a > group here in the internet to engage in political activity? Or is it the > handing out of membership cards that makes all the difference? I do not back an oligarchy. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 18:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pevgcu$uks$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688384 |
In news:fngsnmFb4h3U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/2/18 5:37 PM, benj wrote: > ... >>> Ok, now you've trotted off into Lalaland. >> For sure. One has to wonder just HOW the NRA benefits from Mass >> shootings and terrorism? > > Massive donations. I am happy to show evidence of this... though this > whole debate is so boringly predictable: a bunch of gun nuts want > special entitlements and do not care how they have to twist language > and blame others to get it. Nothing new here at all. So we can take it as a given that you routinely get your ass kicked when you try to assert that the 2nd amendment recognises the right of the states to form militias. We've had lots of practice dealing with Jones trying the same arguments here. Like you, he ignores counterpoints and doubles down on his flimsy claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fngvtgFbk5tU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688387 |
On 6/2/18 6:30 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fngsnmFb4h3U1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/2/18 5:37 PM, benj wrote: > >> ... >>>> Ok, now you've trotted off into Lalaland. > >>> For sure. One has to wonder just HOW the NRA benefits from Mass >>> shootings and terrorism? >> >> Massive donations. I am happy to show evidence of this... though this >> whole debate is so boringly predictable: a bunch of gun nuts want >> special entitlements and do not care how they have to twist language >> and blame others to get it. Nothing new here at all. > > So we can take it as a given that you routinely get your ass kicked when you try to assert that the > 2nd amendment recognises the right of the states to form militias. > > We've had lots of practice dealing with Jones trying the same arguments here. Like you, he ignores > counterpoints and doubles down on his flimsy claims. Ah, insults and accusations. How creative! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pevkbf$f79$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688390 |
In news:fngvtgFbk5tU6@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/2/18 6:30 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fngsnmFb4h3U1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/2/18 5:37 PM, benj wrote: >>> ... >>>>> Ok, now you've trotted off into Lalaland. >>>> For sure. One has to wonder just HOW the NRA benefits from Mass >>>> shootings and terrorism? >>> Massive donations. I am happy to show evidence of this... though >>> this whole debate is so boringly predictable: a bunch of gun nuts >>> want special entitlements and do not care how they have to twist >>> language and blame others to get it. Nothing new here at all. >> So we can take it as a given that you routinely get your ass kicked >> when you try to assert that the 2nd amendment recognises the right >> of the states to form militias. >> We've had lots of practice dealing with Jones trying the same >> arguments here. Like you, he ignores counterpoints and doubles down >> on his flimsy claims. > Ah, insults and accusations. How creative! Whatever. You're insulted because you've been exposed as a blowhard. Cry me a river.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 00:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pf53p3$s94$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688308 |
"max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message news:peunqt$gka$3@dont-email.me... > In news:fneqvgFtdvgU7@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/1/18 11:08 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fndge4Fm511U1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/1/18 10:29 AM, benj wrote: > >>>> ... >>>>>>>> At the time of the founding, and for many years after, there >>>>>>>> were laws against what we now call open carry, and even laws >>>>>>>> against having loaded guns in homes. > >>>>>>>> The nonsense we are told now is just insane. > >>>>>>> No, we are told (by supreme court) that they are >>>>>>> unconstitutional. IN other words states and cities cannot >>>>>>> override the constitution when it comes to second amendment. >>>>>>> This is a recent determination. It's called being incorporated. > >>>>>> First, you might want to look more closely at the Heller case. It >>>>>> makes it clear there ARE limits. > >>>>>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html> > >>>>>> It is about "the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits >>>>>> carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock >>>>>> requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms >>>>>> in the home." > >>>>> That was the original case, fer sure, but the opinion goes well >>>>> beyond that. > >>>> Would love to hear your view on it. > >>>>>> It is about having a common handgun in your home, not about >>>>>> carrying one around, no less other arms. It even specifically >>>>>> speaks of acceptance of "limits the type of weapon to which the >>>>>> right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common >>>>>> use for lawful purposes". > >>>>> Which is stated correctly. Miller opinion, noted that 2nd amendment >>>>> applies to arms relevant to militia. Sporting gear or whatever is >>>>> not protected. Heller noted that this includes (as you note) arms >>>>> "in common use for lawful purposes" of which they noted civilian >>>>> self-defense is one. > >>>> Sure... this was where they engaged in judicial activism and >>>> changed the long standing meaning, and may very well be tied to why >>>> we have more mass shootings since the time of its passing (I have >>>> heard arguments on both sides of this and I do not really take a side). > >>>> But even then the only context it specified was in the home. > >>> In the most notable case before Heller, United States vs Miller, >>> Miller's right to keep and bear arms outside his home was never >>> disputed, only his choice of arm. > >> Wasn't that about a sword? > > What are you smoking, dude? Well it does tell us that his 'research' has been shallow, limited and most likely limited to only what he wanted to hear. "sword" indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 28 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 26 27 [28] 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web