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 16 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 29 Next page →
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7d7l$8lo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688992 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnokd1Fpu21U1@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 3:09 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message >> news:qf5chd9qu8ti4834aacu31oons14c5bn0a@4ax.com... >>> x-no-idiots: yes >>> >>> On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence. >>> >>> Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence >>> with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned >>> inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. >> >> Nothing inconvenient about it other than some idiots like you can't seem >> to figure out how to read the sentence. > > Do you understand the concept of supporting your view? Seems not. I do, you seem to have real problem with it though. After all, I've given you cites, quotes, definitions, you have ONE, ONE, opinion piece which provides no cites and seems intent on delivering ONE view of ONE interpretation without making even an attempt at a balanced view or seeing if all the facts actually supports the claims being made. Which pretty much defines your approach as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnosveFbpqgU35@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689052 |
On 6/5/18 6:17 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnokd1Fpu21U1@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:09 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "!Jones" <jones@fobahor.com> wrote in message >>> news:qf5chd9qu8ti4834aacu31oons14c5bn0a@4ax.com... >>>> x-no-idiots: yes >>>> >>>> On 5 Jun 2018 04:19:51 GMT, in talk.politics.guns Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence. >>>> >>>> Therein lies the problem: the second amendment is a 27-word sentence >>>> with a single clause. The first 13-word noun phrase is damned >>>> inconvenient; therefore, it tends to get truncated. >>> >>> Nothing inconvenient about it other than some idiots like you can't >>> seem to figure out how to read the sentence. >> >> Do you understand the concept of supporting your view? Seems not. > > I do, you seem to have real problem with it though. Incorrect. I have happily backed my views. > After all, I've given you cites, quotes, definitions, you have ONE, ONE, > opinion piece which provides no cites and seems intent on delivering ONE > view of ONE interpretation without making even an attempt at a balanced > view or seeing if all the facts actually supports the claims being made. This is a complete misrepresentation of what I have offered and you suggest meaning about the term "bear arms" to the quotes you have offered even though they do not even mention the term "bear arms". > Which pretty much defines your approach as well. Keep in mind I am the one who provides massive amounts of RELEVANT information. Keep in mind you twist things to say all of the above, AND MORE, is merely "ONE, ONE, opinion piece". https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html ----- A search of Brigham Young Universityâs new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase âbear arms.â BYUâs Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of âbear armsâ in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful donât refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of âbear armsâ in the framersâ day was military. But we shouldnât need big data to tell us this. âBear armsâ has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. ----- 1) https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2792&context=lawreview | First, the second amendment was passed as an | assurance to the states that they would have the | right to maintain their own militias. Such | militias were to be used as the centerpiece of the | nation's military power, as an alternative to a | large standing army, as a tool for the states to | ensure public order, and as a means for the states | to defend against the encroachment of federal | power. | | Second, the second amendment does not operate as a | restraint on the states. It acts as a restraint on the | federal government. | | Third, there is no substantial historical evidence for | the claim that the second amendment guarantees an | individual right to have arms for any purpose other | than participation in a state-regulated militia. | | Fourth, as long as federal gun laws do not adversely | affect the organized state militias, these laws should | encounter no second amendment problems. | | Fifth, because the state militias no longer rely on | the use of privately-owned firearms by their active | members, federal regulation of private gun ownership | poses no threat to state militias, and therefore | raises no constitutional issue. This is demonstrated | by the remarkable unanimity of federal and state | courts in upholding the constitutional validity of | firearms laws against second amendment challenges. 2) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105369 | This article argues that the second amendment was | initially proposed and passed in response to some | antifederalist fears of a standing army. The | thrust of the Amendment was to prevent the | national government from disarming the state | militias. Similarly, the Amendment allowed the | states to arm their own militias if Congress | failed to do so under its Article I, Section 8 | powers. The article notes that Madison and other | Federalists who wrote the Second Amendment were | fully aware of demands for an amendment to protect | an individual's right to own weapons, and that the | framers of the Second Amendment emphatically | rejected this concept. 3) https://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Research/Reviews/rwstand.htm | The contemporary meaning of the Second Amendment | is the same as it was at the time of its adoption. | The federal government may regulate the National | Guard, but may not disarm it against the will of | state legislatures. Nothing in the Second | Amendment, however, precludes Congress or the | states from requiring licensing and registration | of firearms; in fact, there is nothing to stop an | outright congressional ban on private ownership of | all handguns and all rifles. 4) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114 | Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason | to believe that, in significant part, James | Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his | constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, | that Congress could not use its newly-acquired | powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by | disarming the militia, on which the South relied | for slave control. 5) Early gun laws http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr | A variety of laws regulating firearms were already | in place during the Founding Era. Militia | regulations were the most common form of laws | pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite | intrusive, allowing government not only to keep | track of who had firearms, but requiring them to | report for a muster or face stiff penalties. | Regulations governing the storage of gun powder | were also common. States prohibited the use of | firearms on certain occasions and in certain | locations. A variety of race-based exclusions | disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks. | Loyalty oaths also disarmed portions of the | population during the Founding Era. ... | Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of | firearms can be classified as follows: statutes | providing for the confiscation of firearms from | persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to | the state, statutes regulating the use of firearms | within the context of militia obligations, and | statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder. A | smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and | the discharge of firearms in certain places. These | statutes make clear that regulation of firearms is | hardly a modern invention. 6) The most often cited case by the NRA crowd is the Heller case, because in 2008, for the first time, the Supreme Court made a ruling speaking of guns and an individual right: 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". --------- At the time of the founding it was illegal in Boston to have loaded fire arms in your house. As far as I can find there was no backlash from this about it being against the second amendment. In the "Old West", contrary to what movies tell you, it was often illegal to engage in what we now call "open carry". Again, I cannot find any sign of backlash from this. As far as I can find it was not until Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822) - nearly half a century after the founding of the country - that any court case was pushed with the idea that the second amendment was about individual rights and opposed to those that are mentioned above. In that case it was deemed it was legal to carry a concealed *sword*. With all this said, I do not pretend to be an expert in this and am open to findings that I have not stumbled on. In the 1939 Supreme Court case of United States v. Miller it was found (unanimously) that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a "well regulated Militia." That was the understood meaning of the amendment for most of the history of the country. It was about a well regulated militia. In 2008 the meaning was heavily changed in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (in a 5 to 4 decision) where it was first determined to be a right of an individual. Even then it was very specifically tied to just the home: "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." Heller 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". --------- While not a part of the law itself, the Articles of Confederation are a key document that lead to the US Constitution. Much of the language of the constitution originated there. This includes the phrase "well regulated" in terms of a militia. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp "... 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." ---------- -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf72sa$hr7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688813 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net... > Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> >> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >> news:rfl5hd5lpeptstffvnd3u9jhngdjc4tjd3@4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ] >>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ... >>>>> >>>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... " >>>>> >>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>>> >>>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something like >>>> seven different versions of the second amendment with different commas >>>> and capitalization. >>> >>> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"???? >> >> Or for that how many do not say "the right of the people"??? >> >> >> > > Look at the WHOLE sentence. I did. Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, not the state, but the people. Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence can NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar action on the main clause because a nominative absolute clause has NO grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence which would be required for such to exist. So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the WHOLE sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of the people and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the free state, or anything else referenced by the nominative absolute clause.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 16:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnokc0FbpqgU17@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688973 |
On 6/5/18 3:08 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net... >> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>> news:rfl5hd5lpeptstffvnd3u9jhngdjc4tjd3@4ax.com... >>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ] >>>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... " >>>>>> >>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>>>> >>>>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something like >>>>> seven different versions of the second amendment with different commas >>>>> and capitalization. >>>> >>>> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"???? >>> >>> Or for that how many do not say "the right of the people"??? >>> >>> >>> >> >> Look at the WHOLE sentence. > > I did. The sentence is more than "the right of the people". That is a fragment. > Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, > not the state, but the people. Again, read the WHOLE sentence. > Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence can > NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar action on the > main clause because a nominative absolute clause has NO grammatical > connection to the rest of the sentence which would be required for such > to exist. Interesting claim. Do you have ANY support? > So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the WHOLE > sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of the people > and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the free state, or > anything else referenced by the nominative absolute clause. Again, happy to see your support. Meanwhile the opposite is easy to show, just do this search and see what you find: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> Really... not sure why you want to rehash this time and time again when you have no sign of any ability to back what you claim. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7bq1$1re$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #688991 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:fnokc0FbpqgU17@mid.individual.net...
> On 6/5/18 3:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:rfl5hd5lpeptstffvnd3u9jhngdjc4tjd3@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ]
>>>>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen
>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something like
>>>>>> seven different versions of the second amendment with different
>>>>>> commas
>>>>>> and capitalization.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"????
>>>>
>>>> Or for that how many do not say "the right of the people"???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence.
>>
>> I did.
>
> The sentence is more than "the right of the people". That is a fragment.
No shit, Sherlock. But what is critical is you keep telling us the right is
that of some group OTHER than the people. The language doesn't support your
contention.
>
>> Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, not the
>> state, but the people.
>
> Again, read the WHOLE sentence.
I did, and the right is still stated to be that of the people....not the
militia, not the state, not the State militia, but the people.
>> Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence can
>> NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar action on the
>> main clause because a nominative absolute clause has NO grammatical
>> connection to the rest of the sentence which would be required for such
>> to exist.
>
> Interesting claim. Do you have ANY support?
Sure.
I'm happy to take you back to grade school, since apparently you didn't
learn anything there.
A nominative absolute is a noun phrase that begins or ends a sentence. The
phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. Most
nominative absolutes contain a participle or participial phrase which
modifies the noun or pronoun.
http://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
The Nominative Absolute Construction is a construction in which the
participle stands in predicative relation to a noun in the Common Case or a
pronoun in the Nominative Case; the noun or pronoun is not the subject of
the sentence.
http://englishstandarts.blogspot.com/2013/10/nominative-absolute-construction.html
So, no grammatical connection and the noun or pronoun of the nominative
absolute is not the subject of the sentence.
Therefore, neither the well regulated militia nor the free state is the
subject of the 2nd Amendment, and lacking a grammatical connection can not
impose any conditions, limitations, restrictions, or such upon the main
clause, since the nominative absolute is a free standing clause.
In this case what the nominative absolute does is to convey an opinion which
explains one reason for why the main clause is important.
For one can not have a well regulated militia with which to defend the free
state without a generally armed populous from which to form such a militia
in times of need. Therefore, to insure that such a militia can be formed in
times of need the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
>> So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the WHOLE
>> sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of the people
>> and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the free state, or
>> anything else referenced by the nominative absolute clause.
>
> Again, happy to see your support. Meanwhile the opposite is easy to show,
> just do this search and see what you find:
>
> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history>
>
> Really... not sure why you want to rehash this time and time again when
> you have no sign of any ability to back what you claim.
I'm regularly backing up what I say, you on the other hand seem to have a
single solitary to a flawed opinion piece which makes many assertions but
fails to provide any support for those assertions.
But luckily your opinion doesn't really matter because virtually everyone
else, including SCOTUS, can see the protected right of individuals to keep
and bear arms.
So, if you expect to make a change, you're going to need to do a lot better
than the mistaken opinion you keep citing. Heck, you might even take time to
read the DC vs Heller decision since SCOTUS took quite a lot of time to
explain exactly how the Court reached it's conclusions and includes a
multitude of supporting citations for the material presented. Indeed, your
entire argument has been addressed and refute by the Court.
Indeed let's pull a few phrases out from that decision for your
enlightenment and education....which you will probably ignore.
*************************************************************************************
"This contrasts markedly with the phrase âthe militiaâ in the prefatory
clause. As we will describe below, the âmilitiaâ in colonial America
consisted of a subset of âthe peopleââthose who were male, able bodied, and
within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only
the right to âkeep and bear Armsâ in an organized militia therefore fits
poorly with the operative clauseâs description of the holder of that right
as âthe people.â"
***********************************************************************************
"Before addressing the verbs âkeepâ and âbear,â we interpret their object:
âArms.â The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The
1773 edition of Samuel Johnsonâs dictionary defined âarmsâ as âweapons of
offence, or armour of defence.â 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107
(4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunninghamâs important 1771 legal
dictionary defined âarmsâ as âany thing that a man wears for his defence, or
takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.â 1 A
New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American
Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter
Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically
designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For
instance, Cunninghamâs legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
âServants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not
bear other arms.â See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del.
Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102,
104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455,
458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing âarmsâ). Although
one founding-era thesaurus limited âarmsâ (as opposed to âweaponsâ) to
âinstruments of offence generally made use of in war,â even that source
stated that all firearms constituted âarms.â 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction
Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis
added).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those
arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment
. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American
Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment
applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S.
27, 35â36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all
instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in
existence at the time of the founding.
We turn to the phrases âkeep armsâ and âbear arms.â Johnson defined
âkeepâ as, most relevantly, â[t]o retain; not to lose,â and â[t]o have in
custody.â Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as â[t]o hold; to retain in oneâs
power or possession.â No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of
âkeep Arms.â Thus, the most natural reading of âkeep Armsâ in the Second
Amendment is to âhave weapons.â
The phrase âkeep armsâ was not prevalent in the written documents of the
founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of
which favor viewing the right to âkeep Armsâ as an individual right
unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote
that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England
suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to
âkeep arms in their houses.â 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769)
(hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at
Large 422 (1689) (â[N]o Papist âĶ shall or may have or keep in his House âĶ
any Arms âĶ â); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771)
(similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that
required militia members to âkeepâ arms in connection with militia service,
and they conclude from this that the phrase âkeep Armsâ has a
militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16â17 (citing laws of
Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since
there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to âfile
complaintsâ with federal agencies, the phrase âfile complaintsâ has an
employment-related connotation. âKeep armsâ was simply a common way of
referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7
At the time of the founding, as now, to âbearâ meant to âcarry.â See Johnson
161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language
(1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).
When used with âarms,â however, the term has a meaning that refers to
carrying for a particular purposeâconfrontation. In Muscarello v. United
States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of
âcarries a firearmâ in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote
that â[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitutionâs Second
Amendment âĶ indicate[s]: âwear, bear, or carry âĶ upon the person or in the
clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose âĶ of being armed and ready for
offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.â â
Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Blackâs Law Dictionary 214 (6th
ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural
meaning of âbear arms.â Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the
weapon is for the purpose of âoffensive or defensive action,â it in no way
connotes participation in a structured military organization."
*********************************************************************************
Seems they looked at your argument and found that it failed to stand up to
examination of the facts.
Further, they provided cites to sources, and those sources provide
additional cites to their sources, each building to reach an inescapable
conclusion.....that your argument is crap.
Oh, and lest we forget....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
After all, I wouldn't want you to claim I'm not citing a source.
But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnoqkdFqsh7U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689035 |
On 6/5/18 6:01 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message > news:fnokc0FbpqgU17@mid.individual.net... >> On 6/5/18 3:08 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net... >>>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:rfl5hd5lpeptstffvnd3u9jhngdjc4tjd3@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ] >>>>>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something like >>>>>>> seven different versions of the second amendment with different >>>>>>> commas >>>>>>> and capitalization. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"???? >>>>> >>>>> Or for that how many do not say "the right of the people"??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence. >>> >>> I did. >> >> The sentence is more than "the right of the people". That is a fragment. > > No shit, Sherlock. But what is critical is you keep telling us the right > is that of some group OTHER than the people. The language doesn't > support your contention. > > >> >>> Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, not >>> the state, but the people. >> >> Again, read the WHOLE sentence. > > I did, and the right is still stated to be that of the people....not the > militia, not the state, not the State militia, but the people. > > >>> Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence >>> can NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar action >>> on the main clause because a nominative absolute clause has NO >>> grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence which would be >>> required for such to exist. >> >> Interesting claim. Do you have ANY support? > > Sure. > > I'm happy to take you back to grade school, since apparently you didn't > learn anything there. > > > A nominative absolute is a noun phrase that begins or ends a sentence. > The phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. > Most nominative absolutes contain a participle or participial phrase > which modifies the noun or pronoun. > http://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm > > > The Nominative Absolute Construction is a construction in which the > participle stands in predicative relation to a noun in the Common Case > or a pronoun in the Nominative Case; the noun or pronoun is not the > subject of the sentence. > http://englishstandarts.blogspot.com/2013/10/nominative-absolute-construction.html > > > So, no grammatical connection and the noun or pronoun of the nominative > absolute is not the subject of the sentence. > > Therefore, neither the well regulated militia nor the free state is the > subject of the 2nd Amendment, and lacking a grammatical connection can > not impose any conditions, limitations, restrictions, or such upon the > main clause, since the nominative absolute is a free standing clause. > > In this case what the nominative absolute does is to convey an opinion > which explains one reason for why the main clause is important. > > For one can not have a well regulated militia with which to defend the > free state without a generally armed populous from which to form such a > militia in times of need. Therefore, to insure that such a militia can > be formed in times of need the right of the people to keep and bear arms > shall not be infringed. > > > > >>> So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the >>> WHOLE sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of >>> the people and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the free >>> state, or anything else referenced by the nominative absolute clause. >> >> Again, happy to see your support. Meanwhile the opposite is easy to >> show, just do this search and see what you find: >> >> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> >> >> Really... not sure why you want to rehash this time and time again >> when you have no sign of any ability to back what you claim. > > I'm regularly backing up what I say, you on the other hand seem to have > a single solitary to a flawed opinion piece which makes many assertions > but fails to provide any support for those assertions. > > But luckily your opinion doesn't really matter because virtually > everyone else, including SCOTUS, can see the protected right of > individuals to keep and bear arms. > > So, if you expect to make a change, you're going to need to do a lot > better than the mistaken opinion you keep citing. Heck, you might even > take time to read the DC vs Heller decision since SCOTUS took quite a > lot of time to explain exactly how the Court reached it's conclusions > and includes a multitude of supporting citations for the material > presented. Indeed, your entire argument has been addressed and refute by > the Court. > > Indeed let's pull a few phrases out from that decision for your > enlightenment and education....which you will probably ignore. > > ************************************************************************************* > > > "This contrasts markedly with the phrase âthe militiaâ in the prefatory > clause. As we will describe below, the âmilitiaâ in colonial America > consisted of a subset of âthe peopleââthose who were male, able bodied, > and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as > protecting only the right to âkeep and bear Armsâ in an organized > militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clauseâs description of > the holder of that right as âthe people.â" > > *********************************************************************************** > > > "Before addressing the verbs âkeepâ and âbear,â we interpret their > object: âArms.â The 18th-century meaning is no different from the > meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnsonâs dictionary defined > âarmsâ as âweapons of offence, or armour of defence.â 1 Dictionary of > the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy > Cunninghamâs important 1771 legal dictionary defined âarmsâ as âany > thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or > useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.â 1 A New and Complete Law > Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the > English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). > >   The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not > specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a > military capacity. For instance, Cunninghamâs legal dictionary gave as > an example of usage: âServants and labourers shall use bows and arrows > on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.â See also, e.g., An Act for the > trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws > of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see > generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of > state courts construing âarmsâ). Although one founding-era thesaurus > limited âarmsâ (as opposed to âweaponsâ) to âinstruments of offence > generally made use of in war,â even that source stated that all firearms > constituted âarms.â 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed > Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added). > >   Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only > those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second > Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as > the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno > v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the > Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. > United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35â36 (2001) , the Second Amendment > extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, > even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. > >   We turn to the phrases âkeep armsâ and âbear arms.â Johnson defined > âkeepâ as, most relevantly, â[t]o retain; not to lose,â and â[t]o have > in custody.â Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as â[t]o hold; to retain > in oneâs power or possession.â No party has apprised us of an idiomatic > meaning of âkeep Arms.â Thus, the most natural reading of âkeep Armsâ in > the Second Amendment is to âhave weapons.â > >   The phrase âkeep armsâ was not prevalent in the written documents of > the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, > all of which favor viewing the right to âkeep Armsâ as an individual > right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, > wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of > England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not > permitted to âkeep arms in their houses.â 4 Commentaries on the Laws of > England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, > §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (â[N]o Papist âĶ shall or may > have or keep in his House âĶ any Arms âĶ â); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the > Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia > laws of the founding period that required militia members to âkeepâ arms > in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the > phrase âkeep Armsâ has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for > Petitioners 16â17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). > This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that > authorize aggrieved employees to âfile complaintsâ with federal > agencies, the phrase âfile complaintsâ has an employment-related > connotation. âKeep armsâ was simply a common way of referring to > possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7 > > At the time of the founding, as now, to âbearâ meant to âcarry.â See > Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English > Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) > (hereinafter Oxford). When used with âarms,â however, the term has a > meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purposeâconfrontation. > In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of > analyzing the meaning of âcarries a firearmâ in a federal criminal > statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that â[s]urely a most familiar meaning > is, as the Constitutionâs Second Amendment âĶ indicate[s]: âwear, bear, > or carry âĶ upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the > purpose âĶ of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in > a case of conflict with another person.â â Id., at 143 (dissenting > opinion) (quoting Blackâs Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think > that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of âbear > arms.â Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is > for the purpose of âoffensive or defensive action,â it in no way > connotes participation in a structured military organization." > > ********************************************************************************* > > > Seems they looked at your argument and found that it failed to stand up > to examination of the facts. > > Further, they provided cites to sources, and those sources provide > additional cites to their sources, each building to reach an inescapable > conclusion.....that your argument is crap. > > Oh, and lest we forget.... > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html > > After all, I wouldn't want you to claim I'm not citing a source. > > But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS > > https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf > > > > Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to in some depth? I doubt it. So back to the topic: * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action". * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. * I back evidence-based policies. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 23:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pf7ksc$acu$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689047 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:fnoqkdFqsh7U4@mid.individual.net... > On 6/5/18 6:01 PM, Scout wrote: >> >> >> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >> news:fnokc0FbpqgU17@mid.individual.net... >>> On 6/5/18 3:08 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net... >>>>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:rfl5hd5lpeptstffvnd3u9jhngdjc4tjd3@4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ] >>>>>>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something like >>>>>>>> seven different versions of the second amendment with different >>>>>>>> commas >>>>>>>> and capitalization. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"???? >>>>>> >>>>>> Or for that how many do not say "the right of the people"??? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence. >>>> >>>> I did. >>> >>> The sentence is more than "the right of the people". That is a fragment. >> >> No shit, Sherlock. But what is critical is you keep telling us the right >> is that of some group OTHER than the people. The language doesn't support >> your contention. >> >> >>> >>>> Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, not the >>>> state, but the people. >>> >>> Again, read the WHOLE sentence. >> >> I did, and the right is still stated to be that of the people....not the >> militia, not the state, not the State militia, but the people. >> >> >>>> Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence can >>>> NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar action on the >>>> main clause because a nominative absolute clause has NO grammatical >>>> connection to the rest of the sentence which would be required for such >>>> to exist. >>> >>> Interesting claim. Do you have ANY support? >> >> Sure. >> >> I'm happy to take you back to grade school, since apparently you didn't >> learn anything there. >> >> >> A nominative absolute is a noun phrase that begins or ends a sentence. >> The phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. >> Most nominative absolutes contain a participle or participial phrase >> which modifies the noun or pronoun. >> http://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm >> >> >> The Nominative Absolute Construction is a construction in which the >> participle stands in predicative relation to a noun in the Common Case >> or a pronoun in the Nominative Case; the noun or pronoun is not the >> subject of the sentence. >> http://englishstandarts.blogspot.com/2013/10/nominative-absolute-construction.html >> So, no grammatical connection and the noun or pronoun of the nominative >> absolute is not the subject of the sentence. >> >> Therefore, neither the well regulated militia nor the free state is the >> subject of the 2nd Amendment, and lacking a grammatical connection can >> not impose any conditions, limitations, restrictions, or such upon the >> main clause, since the nominative absolute is a free standing clause. >> >> In this case what the nominative absolute does is to convey an opinion >> which explains one reason for why the main clause is important. >> >> For one can not have a well regulated militia with which to defend the >> free state without a generally armed populous from which to form such a >> militia in times of need. Therefore, to insure that such a militia can be >> formed in times of need the right of the people to keep and bear arms >> shall not be infringed. >> >> >> >> >>>> So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the WHOLE >>>> sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of the people >>>> and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the free state, or >>>> anything else referenced by the nominative absolute clause. >>> >>> Again, happy to see your support. Meanwhile the opposite is easy to >>> show, just do this search and see what you find: >>> >>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history> >>> >>> Really... not sure why you want to rehash this time and time again when >>> you have no sign of any ability to back what you claim. >> >> I'm regularly backing up what I say, you on the other hand seem to have a >> single solitary to a flawed opinion piece which makes many assertions but >> fails to provide any support for those assertions. >> >> But luckily your opinion doesn't really matter because virtually everyone >> else, including SCOTUS, can see the protected right of individuals to >> keep and bear arms. >> >> So, if you expect to make a change, you're going to need to do a lot >> better than the mistaken opinion you keep citing. Heck, you might even >> take time to read the DC vs Heller decision since SCOTUS took quite a lot >> of time to explain exactly how the Court reached it's conclusions and >> includes a multitude of supporting citations for the material presented. >> Indeed, your entire argument has been addressed and refute by the Court. >> >> Indeed let's pull a few phrases out from that decision for your >> enlightenment and education....which you will probably ignore. >> >> ************************************************************************************* >> "This contrasts markedly with the phrase âthe militiaâ in the prefatory >> clause. As we will describe below, the âmilitiaâ in colonial America >> consisted of a subset of âthe peopleââthose who were male, able bodied, >> and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as >> protecting only the right to âkeep and bear Armsâ in an organized militia >> therefore fits poorly with the operative clauseâs description of the >> holder of that right as âthe people.â" >> >> *********************************************************************************** >> "Before addressing the verbs âkeepâ and âbear,â we interpret their >> object: âArms.â The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning >> today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnsonâs dictionary defined âarmsâ as >> âweapons of offence, or armour of defence.â 1 Dictionary of the English >> Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunninghamâs >> important 1771 legal dictionary defined âarmsâ as âany thing that a man >> wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast >> at or strike another.â 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see >> also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) >> (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). >> >> The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not >> specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a >> military capacity. For instance, Cunninghamâs legal dictionary gave as an >> example of usage: âServants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on >> Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.â See also, e.g., An Act for the >> trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws >> of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see >> generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of >> state courts construing âarmsâ). Although one founding-era thesaurus >> limited âarmsâ (as opposed to âweaponsâ) to âinstruments of offence >> generally made use of in war,â even that source stated that all firearms >> constituted âarms.â 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed >> Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added). >> >> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only >> those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second >> Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as >> the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno >> v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the >> Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United >> States, 533 U. S. 27, 35â36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima >> facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that >> were not in existence at the time of the founding. >> >> We turn to the phrases âkeep armsâ and âbear arms.â Johnson defined >> âkeepâ as, most relevantly, â[t]o retain; not to lose,â and â[t]o have in >> custody.â Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as â[t]o hold; to retain in >> oneâs power or possession.â No party has apprised us of an idiomatic >> meaning of âkeep Arms.â Thus, the most natural reading of âkeep Armsâ in >> the Second Amendment is to âhave weapons.â >> >> The phrase âkeep armsâ was not prevalent in the written documents of >> the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all >> of which favor viewing the right to âkeep Armsâ as an individual right >> unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote >> that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of >> England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not >> permitted to âkeep arms in their houses.â 4 Commentaries on the Laws of >> England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, >> §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (â[N]o Papist âĶ shall or may have >> or keep in his House âĶ any Arms âĶ â); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of >> the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the >> founding period that required militia members to âkeepâ arms in >> connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the >> phrase âkeep Armsâ has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for >> Petitioners 16â17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). >> This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that >> authorize aggrieved employees to âfile complaintsâ with federal agencies, >> the phrase âfile complaintsâ has an employment-related connotation. âKeep >> armsâ was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for >> militiamen and everyone else.7 >> >> At the time of the founding, as now, to âbearâ meant to âcarry.â See >> Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English >> Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) >> (hereinafter Oxford). When used with âarms,â however, the term has a >> meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purposeâconfrontation. >> In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of >> analyzing the meaning of âcarries a firearmâ in a federal criminal >> statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that â[s]urely a most familiar meaning >> is, as the Constitutionâs Second Amendment âĶ indicate[s]: âwear, bear, or >> carry âĶ upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the >> purpose âĶ of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a >> case of conflict with another person.â â Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) >> (quoting Blackâs Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that >> Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of âbear arms.â >> Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the >> purpose of âoffensive or defensive action,â it in no way connotes >> participation in a structured military organization." >> >> ********************************************************************************* >> Seems they looked at your argument and found that it failed to stand up >> to examination of the facts. >> >> Further, they provided cites to sources, and those sources provide >> additional cites to their sources, each building to reach an inescapable >> conclusion.....that your argument is crap. >> >> Oh, and lest we forget.... >> >> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html >> >> After all, I wouldn't want you to claim I'm not citing a source. >> >> But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS >> >> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf >> >> >> >> > > Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to in some > depth? > > I doubt it. So back to the topic: > > * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much > exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed > action". > > * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of > the country which were never, as far as I can find, > challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it > a hard sale to say they were against the second > amendment. > > * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported > the states rights view. > > * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from > mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun > laws. > > * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on > arms... what one could call "infringements". > > * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as > we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything > else that is tied to death and injuries. > > * I back evidence-based policies. Note I just tore this whole thing apart and here is this idiot/bot making EXACTLY the same post in EXACTLY the same manner as was just refuted. Glad I plonked it's ass. Now just have to flush out the messages in the que.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 21:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnp4t8FshreU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689105 |
On 6/5/18 8:32 PM, Scout wrote: ... >> Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to in >> some depth? >> >> I doubt it. So back to the topic: >> >> * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much >>  exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed >>  action". >> >> * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of >>  the country which were never, as far as I can find, >>  challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it >>  a hard sale to say they were against the second >>  amendment. >> >> * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported >>  the states rights view. >> >> * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from >>  mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun >>  laws. >> >> * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on >>  arms... what one could call "infringements". >> >> * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as >>  we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything >>  else that is tied to death and injuries. >> >> * I back evidence-based policies. > > Note I just tore this whole thing apart and here is this idiot/bot > making EXACTLY the same post in EXACTLY the same manner as was just > refuted. You failed to show quotes from the founding period where the term "bear arms" was used in a contrary way. You failed. You deem that a success. Interesting. > Glad I plonked it's ass. Now just have to flush out the messages in the > que. One does not have to finish messages in a queue. This is a dishonest claim on your part. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 05:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnuhn8Ft7iqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689105 |
> Note I just tore this whole thing apart and here is this idiot/bot > making EXACTLY the same post in EXACTLY the same manner as was just > refuted. > > Glad I plonked it's ass. Now just have to flush out the messages in the > que. You had some "double jeopardy" going on: Gun control debates are interminable. Snit debates are interminable. Snit will even demand one support common knowledge, as well as the plain meaning of words... -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnump2Fu72oU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689427 |
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > >> Note I just tore this whole thing apart and here is this idiot/bot >> making EXACTLY the same post in EXACTLY the same manner as was just >> refuted. >> >> Glad I plonked it's ass. Now just have to flush out the messages in the >> que. > > You had some "double jeopardy" going on: > > Gun control debates are interminable. > > Snit debates are interminable. > > Snit will even demand one support common knowledge, as well as the plain > meaning of words... > Examples?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pmukhdd49k04b69th3getha9qqm7qbus7a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #689427 |
vallor wrote: >> Note I just tore this whole thing apart and here is this idiot/bot >> making EXACTLY the same post in EXACTLY the same manner as was just >> refuted. >> >> Glad I plonked it's ass. Now just have to flush out the messages in the >> que. > >You had some "double jeopardy" going on: > >Gun control debates are interminable. > >Snit debates are interminable. > >Snit will even demand one support common knowledge, as well as the plain >meaning of words... Personally, I won't debate issues with some thing that has *zero* interest in being reasonable or honest. -- "And it shows that Peter had no idea what EXIF data was... and *none* of the herd came in to correct him, even though others were engaged in the conversation. They presented themselves as people who were completely ignorant of the concept of EXIF data." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fnvhofFp19uU18@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689457 |
On 6/8/18 5:49 AM, chrisv wrote:
> vallor wrote:
>
>>> Note I just tore this whole thing apart and here is this idiot/bot
>>> making EXACTLY the same post in EXACTLY the same manner as was just
>>> refuted.
>>>
>>> Glad I plonked it's ass. Now just have to flush out the messages in the
>>> que.
>>
>> You had some "double jeopardy" going on:
>>
>> Gun control debates are interminable.
>>
>> Snit debates are interminable.
>>
>> Snit will even demand one support common knowledge, as well as the plain
>> meaning of words...
>
> Personally, I won't debate issues with some thing that has *zero*
> interest in being reasonable or honest.
>
Ah, you mean like with this guy:
chrisv:
-----
That thing won't even acknowledge that virtual desktops are a very
nice feature. It claims that they require "too much configuration".
You see, they require that you decide how to organize things on the
desktops.
In other words, in order to enjoy the benefit of a tool, you must
actually use the tool.
Sheesh.
-----
What an absurd lie you told!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 21:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pffk0m$bop$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689047 |
In news:fnoqkdFqsh7U4@mid.individual.net,
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
> On 6/5/18 6:01 PM, Scout wrote:
>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:fnokc0FbpqgU17@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 6/5/18 3:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:rfl5hd5lpeptstffvnd3u9jhngdjc4tjd3@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit
>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ]
>>>>>>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ...
>>>>>>>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... "
>>>>>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen
>>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service.
>>>>>>>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something
>>>>>>>> like seven different versions of the second amendment with
>>>>>>>> different commas and capitalization.
>>>>>>> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"????
>>>>>> Or for that how many do not say "the right of the people"???
>>>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence.
>>>> I did.
>>> The sentence is more than "the right of the people". That is a fragment.
>> No shit, Sherlock. But what is critical is you keep telling us the
>> right is that of some group OTHER than the people. The language
>> doesn't support your contention.
>>>> Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, not
>>>> the state, but the people.
>>> Again, read the WHOLE sentence.
>> I did, and the right is still stated to be that of the people....not
>> the militia, not the state, not the State militia, but the people.
>>>> Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence
>>>> can NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar
>>>> action on the main clause because a nominative absolute clause has
>>>> NO grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence which would
>>>> be required for such to exist.
>>> Interesting claim. Do you have ANY support?
>> Sure.
>> I'm happy to take you back to grade school, since apparently you
>> didn't learn anything there.
>> A nominative absolute is a noun phrase that begins or ends a
>> sentence. The phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of
>> the sentence. Most nominative absolutes contain a participle or
>> participial phrase which modifies the noun or pronoun.
>> http://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
>> The Nominative Absolute Construction is a construction in which the
>> participle stands in predicative relation to a noun in the Common
>> Case or a pronoun in the Nominative Case; the noun or pronoun is not
>> the subject of the sentence.
>> http://englishstandarts.blogspot.com/2013/10/nominative-absolute-construction.html
>> So, no grammatical connection and the noun or pronoun of the
>> nominative absolute is not the subject of the sentence.
>> Therefore, neither the well regulated militia nor the free state is
>> the subject of the 2nd Amendment, and lacking a grammatical
>> connection can not impose any conditions, limitations, restrictions,
>> or such upon the main clause, since the nominative absolute is a
>> free standing clause.
>> In this case what the nominative absolute does is to convey an
>> opinion which explains one reason for why the main clause is
>> important.
>> For one can not have a well regulated militia with which to defend
>> the free state without a generally armed populous from which to form
>> such a militia in times of need. Therefore, to insure that such a
>> militia can be formed in times of need the right of the people to
>> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>>> So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the
>>>> WHOLE sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of
>>>> the people and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the
>>>> free state, or anything else referenced by the nominative absolute
>>>> clause.
>>> Again, happy to see your support. Meanwhile the opposite is easy to
>>> show, just do this search and see what you find:
>>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history>
>>> Really... not sure why you want to rehash this time and time again
>>> when you have no sign of any ability to back what you claim.
>> I'm regularly backing up what I say, you on the other hand seem to
>> have a single solitary to a flawed opinion piece which makes many
>> assertions but fails to provide any support for those assertions.
>> But luckily your opinion doesn't really matter because virtually
>> everyone else, including SCOTUS, can see the protected right of
>> individuals to keep and bear arms.
>> So, if you expect to make a change, you're going to need to do a lot
>> better than the mistaken opinion you keep citing. Heck, you might
>> even take time to read the DC vs Heller decision since SCOTUS took
>> quite a lot of time to explain exactly how the Court reached it's
>> conclusions and includes a multitude of supporting citations for the
>> material presented. Indeed, your entire argument has been addressed
>> and refute by the Court.
>> Indeed let's pull a few phrases out from that decision for your
>> enlightenment and education....which you will probably ignore.
*************************************************************************************
>> "This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the
>> prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in
>> colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"-those who
>> were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the
>> Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear
>> Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the
>> operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the
>> people.""
***********************************************************************************
>> "Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their
>> object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the
>> meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary
>> defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1
>> Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter
>> Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary
>> defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or
>> takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike
>> another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N.
>> Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)
>> (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
>> The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not
>> specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a
>> military capacity. For instance, Cunningham's legal dictionary gave
>> as an example of usage: "Servants and labourers shall use bows and
>> arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms." See also, e.g., An
>> Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104,
>> in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed.
>> 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874)
>> (citing decisions of state courts construing "arms"). Although one
>> founding-era thesaurus limited "arms" (as opposed to "weapons") to
>> "instruments of offence generally made use of in war," even that
>> source stated that all firearms constituted "arms." 1 J. Trusler,
>> The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English
>> Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).
>> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only
>> those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the
>> Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that
>> way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of
>> communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.
>> S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
>> forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36
>> (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all
>> instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not
>> in existence at the time of the founding.
>> We turn to the phrases "keep arms" and "bear arms." Johnson defined
>> "keep" as, most relevantly, "[t]o retain; not to lose," and "[t]o
>> have in custody." Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as "[t]o hold; to
>> retain in one's power or possession." No party has apprised us of an
>> idiomatic meaning of "keep Arms." Thus, the most natural reading of
>> "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons."
>> The phrase "keep arms" was not prevalent in the written documents of
>> the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples,
>> all of which favor viewing the right to "keep Arms" as an individual
>> right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for
>> example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in
>> the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was
>> that they were not permitted to "keep arms in their houses." 4
>> Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter
>> Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large
>> 422 (1689) ("[N]o Papist . shall or may have or keep in his House .
>> any Arms . "); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26
>> (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding
>> period that required militia members to "keep" arms in connection
>> with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase
>> "keep Arms" has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for
>> Petitioners 16-17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and
>> Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many
>> statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to "file complaints"
>> with federal agencies, the phrase "file complaints" has an
>> employment-related connotation. "Keep arms" was simply a common way
>> of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7
>> At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See
>> Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the
>> English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989)
>> (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a
>> meaning that refers to carrying for a particular
>> purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125
>> (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a
>> firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that
>> "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second
>> Amendment . indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry . upon the person or
>> in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . of being armed and
>> ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with
>> another person.' " Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's
>> Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg
>> accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the
>> phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of
>> "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation
>> in a structured military organization."
>> *********************************************************************************
>> Seems they looked at your argument and found that it failed to stand
>> up to examination of the facts.
>> Further, they provided cites to sources, and those sources provide
>> additional cites to their sources, each building to reach an
>> inescapable conclusion.....that your argument is crap.
>> Oh, and lest we forget....
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
>> After all, I wouldn't want you to claim I'm not citing a source.
>> But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS
>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to in
> some depth?
> I doubt it. So back to the topic:...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha.... <whew>
"Let's just pretend that never happened, ok?"
ROFLMAO!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 21:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fo13esFdgbuU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689601 |
On 6/8/18 9:11 PM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:fnoqkdFqsh7U4@mid.individual.net,
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
>
>> On 6/5/18 6:01 PM, Scout wrote:
>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fnokc0FbpqgU17@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 6/5/18 3:08 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fnmhb6Fd8cdU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfreude@null.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:rfl5hd5lpeptstffvnd3u9jhngdjc4tjd3@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:14:41 -0700, Snit
>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 6:27 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> A well regulated Militia [ no comma ]
>>>>>>>>>>> being necessary to the security of a free State, ...
>
>>>>>>>>>> Or, more clearly: " For The State's Militia, ... "
>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen
>>>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service.
>
>>>>>>>>> And when stating "no comma", keep in mind there were something
>>>>>>>>> like seven different versions of the second amendment with
>>>>>>>>> different commas and capitalization.
>
>>>>>>>> Cool- how many of the say "The right of the state"????
>
>>>>>>> Or for that how many do not say "the right of the people"???
>
>>>>>> Look at the WHOLE sentence.
>
>>>>> I did.
>
>>>> The sentence is more than "the right of the people". That is a fragment.
>
>>> No shit, Sherlock. But what is critical is you keep telling us the
>>> right is that of some group OTHER than the people. The language
>>> doesn't support your contention.
>
>>>>> Still says the right is that of the people....not the militia, not
>>>>> the state, but the people.
>
>>>> Again, read the WHOLE sentence.
>
>>> I did, and the right is still stated to be that of the people....not
>>> the militia, not the state, not the State militia, but the people.
>
>>>>> Further the nominative absolute clause at the start of the sentence
>>>>> can NOT impose any conditions, limits, restraints, or similar
>>>>> action on the main clause because a nominative absolute clause has
>>>>> NO grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence which would
>>>>> be required for such to exist.
>
>>>> Interesting claim. Do you have ANY support?
>
>>> Sure.
>
>>> I'm happy to take you back to grade school, since apparently you
>>> didn't learn anything there.
>
>
>>> A nominative absolute is a noun phrase that begins or ends a
>>> sentence. The phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of
>>> the sentence. Most nominative absolutes contain a participle or
>>> participial phrase which modifies the noun or pronoun.
>>> http://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
>
>>> The Nominative Absolute Construction is a construction in which the
>>> participle stands in predicative relation to a noun in the Common
>>> Case or a pronoun in the Nominative Case; the noun or pronoun is not
>>> the subject of the sentence.
>
>>> http://englishstandarts.blogspot.com/2013/10/nominative-absolute-construction.html
>
>
>>> So, no grammatical connection and the noun or pronoun of the
>>> nominative absolute is not the subject of the sentence.
>
>>> Therefore, neither the well regulated militia nor the free state is
>>> the subject of the 2nd Amendment, and lacking a grammatical
>>> connection can not impose any conditions, limitations, restrictions,
>>> or such upon the main clause, since the nominative absolute is a
>>> free standing clause.
>
>>> In this case what the nominative absolute does is to convey an
>>> opinion which explains one reason for why the main clause is
>>> important.
>
>>> For one can not have a well regulated militia with which to defend
>>> the free state without a generally armed populous from which to form
>>> such a militia in times of need. Therefore, to insure that such a
>>> militia can be formed in times of need the right of the people to
>>> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
>>>>> So, if you look at the WHOLE sentence and actually understand the
>>>>> WHOLE sentence, you can still figure out that the right of that of
>>>>> the people and isn't limited to the well regulated militia, the
>>>>> free state, or anything else referenced by the nominative absolute
>>>>> clause.
>
>>>> Again, happy to see your support. Meanwhile the opposite is easy to
>>>> show, just do this search and see what you find:
>
>>>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+amendment+history>
>
>>>> Really... not sure why you want to rehash this time and time again
>>>> when you have no sign of any ability to back what you claim.
>
>>> I'm regularly backing up what I say, you on the other hand seem to
>>> have a single solitary to a flawed opinion piece which makes many
>>> assertions but fails to provide any support for those assertions.
>
>>> But luckily your opinion doesn't really matter because virtually
>>> everyone else, including SCOTUS, can see the protected right of
>>> individuals to keep and bear arms.
>
>>> So, if you expect to make a change, you're going to need to do a lot
>>> better than the mistaken opinion you keep citing. Heck, you might
>>> even take time to read the DC vs Heller decision since SCOTUS took
>>> quite a lot of time to explain exactly how the Court reached it's
>>> conclusions and includes a multitude of supporting citations for the
>>> material presented. Indeed, your entire argument has been addressed
>>> and refute by the Court.
>
>>> Indeed let's pull a few phrases out from that decision for your
>>> enlightenment and education....which you will probably ignore.
>
> *************************************************************************************
>
>>> "This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the
>>> prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in
>>> colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"-those who
>>> were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the
>>> Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear
>>> Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the
>>> operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the
>>> people.""
>
> ***********************************************************************************
>
>>> "Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their
>>> object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the
>>> meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary
>>> defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1
>>> Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter
>>> Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary
>>> defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or
>>> takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike
>>> another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N.
>>> Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)
>>> (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
>
>>> The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not
>>> specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a
>>> military capacity. For instance, Cunningham's legal dictionary gave
>>> as an example of usage: "Servants and labourers shall use bows and
>>> arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms." See also, e.g., An
>>> Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104,
>>> in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed.
>>> 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874)
>>> (citing decisions of state courts construing "arms"). Although one
>>> founding-era thesaurus limited "arms" (as opposed to "weapons") to
>>> "instruments of offence generally made use of in war," even that
>>> source stated that all firearms constituted "arms." 1 J. Trusler,
>>> The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English
>>> Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).
>
>>> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only
>>> those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the
>>> Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that
>>> way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of
>>> communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.
>>> S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
>>> forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36
>>> (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all
>>> instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not
>>> in existence at the time of the founding.
>
>>> We turn to the phrases "keep arms" and "bear arms." Johnson defined
>>> "keep" as, most relevantly, "[t]o retain; not to lose," and "[t]o
>>> have in custody." Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as "[t]o hold; to
>>> retain in one's power or possession." No party has apprised us of an
>>> idiomatic meaning of "keep Arms." Thus, the most natural reading of
>>> "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons."
>
>>> The phrase "keep arms" was not prevalent in the written documents of
>>> the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples,
>>> all of which favor viewing the right to "keep Arms" as an individual
>>> right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for
>>> example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in
>>> the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was
>>> that they were not permitted to "keep arms in their houses." 4
>>> Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter
>>> Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large
>>> 422 (1689) ("[N]o Papist . shall or may have or keep in his House .
>>> any Arms . "); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26
>>> (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding
>>> period that required militia members to "keep" arms in connection
>>> with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase
>>> "keep Arms" has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for
>>> Petitioners 16-17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and
>>> Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many
>>> statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to "file complaints"
>>> with federal agencies, the phrase "file complaints" has an
>>> employment-related connotation. "Keep arms" was simply a common way
>>> of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7
>
>>> At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See
>>> Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the
>>> English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989)
>>> (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a
>>> meaning that refers to carrying for a particular
>>> purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125
>>> (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a
>>> firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that
>>> "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second
>>> Amendment . indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry . upon the person or
>>> in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . of being armed and
>>> ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with
>>> another person.' " Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's
>>> Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg
>>> accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the
>>> phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of
>>> "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation
>>> in a structured military organization."
>
>>> *********************************************************************************
>
>>> Seems they looked at your argument and found that it failed to stand
>>> up to examination of the facts.
>
>>> Further, they provided cites to sources, and those sources provide
>>> additional cites to their sources, each building to reach an
>>> inescapable conclusion.....that your argument is crap.
>
>>> Oh, and lest we forget....
>
>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
>
>>> After all, I wouldn't want you to claim I'm not citing a source.
>
>>> But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS
>
>>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
>
>
>> Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to in
>> some depth?
>
>> I doubt it. So back to the topic:...
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha.... <whew>
>
> "Let's just pretend that never happened, ok?"
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
>
A simple "no" would have done.
Seriously, you are merely pretending that if you say A and then I
explain why I think A is incorrect, and offer evidence, that repeating A
will somehow show support for your 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 | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 21:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pffn1e$phk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689603 |
In news:fo13esFdgbuU2@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/8/18 9:11 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fnoqkdFqsh7U4@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/5/18 6:01 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS >>>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf >>> Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to in >>> some depth? >>> I doubt it. So back to the topic:... >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha.... <whew> >> "Let's just pretend that never happened, ok?" >> ROFLMAO! > A simple "no" would have done. Why would I lie? > Seriously, you are merely pretending that if you say A and then I > explain why I think A is incorrect, and offer evidence, that > repeating A will somehow show support for your view. ?!? That's exactly what you're doing. Scout offered a stinging rebuttal to your claims, and all you can do is pretend you've already covered it and restate your claims. You're a fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 22:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fo15imFcgkoU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689605 |
On 6/8/18 9:54 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fo13esFdgbuU2@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/8/18 9:11 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fnoqkdFqsh7U4@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/5/18 6:01 PM, Scout wrote: > >>>>> But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS > >>>>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf > > >>>> Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to in >>>> some depth? > >>>> I doubt it. So back to the topic:... > >>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha.... <whew> > >>> "Let's just pretend that never happened, ok?" > >>> ROFLMAO! > >> A simple "no" would have done. > > Why would I lie? > >> Seriously, you are merely pretending that if you say A and then I >> explain why I think A is incorrect, and offer evidence, that >> repeating A will somehow show support for your view. > > ?!? > > That's exactly what you're doing. Scout offered a stinging rebuttal to your claims, and all you can > do is pretend you've already covered it and restate your claims. > > You're a fraud. > > My claims are simple... and so far unrefuted. * The meaning / usage of "bear arms" (pretty much exclusively for "war, soldiering or organized, armed action". * Their were laws restricting firearms at the start of the country which were never, as far as I can find, challenged on second amendment grounds. This makes it a hard sale to say they were against the second amendment. * Most (though not all) relevant scholars have supported the states rights view. * We should not allow the NRA, a group that benefits from mass shootings and terrorism, to largely control our gun laws. * We clearly do have, have had, and should have, limits on arms... what one could call "infringements". * We should do more research on gun deaths and injuries, as we do with vehicles, pools, food, and pretty much everything else that is tied to death and injuries. * I back evidence-based policies. Meanwhile I am called a "gun grabber" and other nonsense is tossed around. Whatever. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 22:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <pffpg9$5bm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689607 |
In news:fo15imFcgkoU2@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/8/18 9:54 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fo13esFdgbuU2@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/8/18 9:11 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fnoqkdFqsh7U4@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 6/5/18 6:01 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>> But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS >>>>>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf >>>>> Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to >>>>> in some depth? >>>>> I doubt it. So back to the topic:... >>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha.... <whew> >>>> "Let's just pretend that never happened, ok?" >>>> ROFLMAO! >>> A simple "no" would have done. >> Why would I lie? >>> Seriously, you are merely pretending that if you say A and then I >>> explain why I think A is incorrect, and offer evidence, that >>> repeating A will somehow show support for your view. >> ?!? >> That's exactly what you're doing. Scout offered a stinging rebuttal >> to your claims, and all you can do is pretend you've already covered >> it and restate your claims. >> You're a fraud. > My claims are simple... and so far unrefuted. Totally refuted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-08 22:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. |
| Message-ID | <fo185gFcgkoU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689612 |
On 6/8/18 10:42 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fo15imFcgkoU2@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/8/18 9:54 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fo13esFdgbuU2@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/8/18 9:11 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>> In news:fnoqkdFqsh7U4@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/5/18 6:01 PM, Scout wrote: > >>>>>>> But if you prefer something directly from SCOTUS > >>>>>>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf > > >>>>>> Is there ANY part of that which you think I have not responded to >>>>>> in some depth? > >>>>>> I doubt it. So back to the topic:... > >>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha.... <whew> > >>>>> "Let's just pretend that never happened, ok?" > >>>>> ROFLMAO! > >>>> A simple "no" would have done. > >>> Why would I lie? > >>>> Seriously, you are merely pretending that if you say A and then I >>>> explain why I think A is incorrect, and offer evidence, that >>>> repeating A will somehow show support for your view. > >>> ?!? > >>> That's exactly what you're doing. Scout offered a stinging rebuttal >>> to your claims, and all you can do is pretend you've already covered >>> it and restate your claims. > >>> You're a fraud. > >> My claims are simple... and so far unrefuted. > > Totally refuted. > > Wow. That is POWERFUL. LOL! -- 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 | !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 23:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <352chdt92ukhrdkgj8vgtfvdrb0o74ubnh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #688205 |
x-no-idiots: yes
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 19:15:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms"
>is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense.
>
>The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other context.
>
>While there is some contention, from what we have seen the general view
>of scholars who look at the subject say the second amendment applied to
>state rights and not individual rights.
>
>We know that many laws have existed since the founding of the country,
>including ones near or at the founding, which made it illegal to even
>have a loaded gun in your house or to do what we now call open carry.
>Some laws not only required tracking of who had guns but required
>training and other even loyalty oaths. NONE of these, as far as we know,
>were challenged on second amendment terms.
>
>Even the Heller case, a 5:4 decision where judicial activism was used,
>specifically notes that there can be limits.
>
>When faced with those facts you point to quotes from
><https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990729/america-s-founding-fathers-on-the-2a>,
>do not even site your source, and deem the actual evidence to be "bullshit".
>
>Um, OK.
I have found that the O.P. is unreliable in quoting. A few years ago,
he edited one of my postings making significant semantic changes and
then replied to the edited version. The least he could do is to write
his own stuff.
The NRA's quotes are all taken completely out of context. For
example, here is an article I wrote on Federalist #46 (fed-46). Now,
fed-46 just isn't that long of a document and they really shouldn't
take one sentence out of the middle.
**** Previously published material
One reads the Federalist today to gain an insight into the motivations
of the men most instrumental in drafting the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. In the Federalist, the authors are arguing in favor of the
ratification of the Constitution of 1787; the essays were written
between the writing of the constitution and the first ten amendments
primarily as the collaborative effort of James Madison and Alexander
Hamilton. Federalist 46 is important in that its author is discussing
the militia explicitly as defined in article six of the United States
Document of Confederation. Federalist 35 had recently been published
wherein Mr. Hamilton used the exact words: "well regulated militia".
(When the Federalist was bound and published as a book, #35 was
renumbered as #29.)
Dominating the debate was the locus of power. Would this be with the
states or the federal government? Did the federal government have the
power to levy taxes? And, not least, would the armed forces be
controlled by the states or by the federal government? The latter is
the topic of the second amendment. No place in the discussion is the
individual right to self defense even mentioned; no place is it ever
suggested that "the people" have some right to rise up and overthrow
the constitutional government... as if one would need constitutional
authority to take up arms against the constitution! The idea of
"bearing arms" was never mentioned in any context except the militia.
For your reading pleasure, here is the full text of Federalist No. 46
with some paragraph breaks added.
Federalist No. 46 (James Madison writing; published 1/ 29/1788)
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall
of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal
government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects
of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been
employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to
disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States
should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted
succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should,
throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed
plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the
governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently
behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials,
until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear
to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy,
or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the
sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be
made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the
country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the
federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that
the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to
repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best
computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not
exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one
twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion
would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than
twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near
half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men
chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and
united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and
confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus
circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular
troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful
resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most
inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the
existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a
barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than
any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of
Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear,
the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is
not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake
off their yokes.
But were the people to possess the additional advantages
of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the
national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed
out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them
and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance,
that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily
overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not
insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion,
that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would
be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power
would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
*******************
Discussion:
> The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall
>of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal
>government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects
>of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been
>employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to
>disprove the reality of this danger.
This prefatory paragraph gives the reader no useful information;
essentially, Mr. Madison is asserting that his following content is
intuitively obvious. In the writing of the time, this tactic was
common.
>That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time,
>elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that
>the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically
>pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment;
>that the governments and the people of the States should silently and
>patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials,
>until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear
>to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy,
>or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the
>sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
In this somewhat long sentence, Mr. Madison postulates the idea that
it would take "an uninterrupted succession of men" to subvert the
constitutional protections. Basically, the author is arguing that he
believes this could not possibly happen and that anyone who believes
it could isn't a "genuine patriot" but, instead, is a person
manifesting "the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the
misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal". Here, the reader
learns exactly how Mr. Madison perceives what he terms "the military
establishment"; in the next sentence, he will call it the "regular
army"; elsewhere, he disparagingly refers to a "standing army".
The timeline here (1788) is that what was known as the "Philadelphia
Mutiny" by regular soldiers mustering out of the army who marched on
the capitol demanding their back pay would have been in Mr. Madison's
recent memory; therein, Mr. Madison demanded that the governor of
Pennsylvania call out the state militia to put them down and the
governor did so. Herein, the author is arguing for the ratification
of the 1787 constitutional convention's product; the proposal and
discussion of any "bill of rights" is still several years in the
future. The constitutional document in effect at the time of this
writing was the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781; thus,
when Mr. Madison will later speak of a "militia", he refers to the
definition given in Article Six of this document which reads in part:
"[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."
One other important point that the contemporary reader should note is
that the Articles of Confederation were superseded and augmented by
the Constitution of 1787, but never repealed; therefore, the 1781
definition of a militia remains in effect because the Constitution of
1787 never redefined that term.
> Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be
>made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the
>country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the
>federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that
>the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to
>repel the danger.
Here, Mr. Madison is clearly writing that the source of the threat, as
he sees it, is a "regular army"; the "State governments" will control
the militia as defined under article six of the Document of
Confederation (1781).
>The highest number to which, according to the best
>computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not
>exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one
>twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.
"[According] to the best computation..." would be rendered today as:
"Studies have shown...". Well, studies have shown that any idea
introduced by the phrase: "Studies have shown..." should be ignored.
We do not know to whose "best computation" Mr. Madison refers...
whatever. An important point to note here is that this represents Mr.
Madison's the first recorded use of the term: "to bear arms" and it is
obviously used in a military context; further, the context is given
previously in the same sentence. "To bear arms" is and always has
been a military term!
>This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than
>twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
Yes, if Mr. Madison's 1:25 premise held, then thus would be the 1788
numbers; it's probably not an unreasonable number.
> To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near
>half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men
>chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and
>united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and
>confidence.
This sentence is important because it represents Mr. Madison's first
use of the term: "a militia". Federalist #35 had been published in
the prior weeks. (Federalist #35 was renumbered to #29 when the
documents were compiled and bound.) In Fed. #35, Alexander Hamilton
used the term: "Well regulated militia" as it was defined in Article
Six of the Document of Confederation; Mr. Madison did not propose a
redefinition. The other important point is that this "militia" is
"united and conducted by [state] governments".
Soon, Mr. Madison would become *very* aware of his error of faith in
the militia when he would become the only sitting U.S. President to
command troops in the field as he tried to hold the bridge at
Bladensburg, MD and his vaunted militia panicked and ran, sight
unseen, before the advancing English army; James Madison, the fourth
president of the United States, was forced to run through the streets
of Washington DC with the "debased subjects of arbitrary power" right
behind him... the militia weren't defeated; they broke and ran before
the enemy even came into sight; they were utterly humiliated.
So much for the militia.
>It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever
>be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
Yeah, right! History will not be kind.
>Those who are best acquainted with the last successful
>resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most
>inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Yeah, right again!
> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the
>Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the
>existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
>attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a
>barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than
>any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
.
Since Mr. Madison would later write the second amendment, this is the
sentence most often cited by the apologists for guns; however, the
author obviously speaks of the militia; specifically: "the existence
of [state] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which
the militia officers are appointed..." Mr. Madison never uses the
idea of armed citizens outside of the explicit context of the state
militia.
>Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of
>Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear,
>the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is
>not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake
>off their yokes.
Any time James Madison wrote disparagingly of a "kingdom of Europe",
he always meant England; that was the only country who could have
possibly landed a military force on the American continent and who,
twenty-six years later during his presidency, would do so with
devastating effect as they marched unopposed into Washington DC,
looted the White House, and burned the public buildings.
> But were the people to possess the additional advantages
>of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the
>national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed
>out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them
>and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance,
>that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily
>overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Here, the author's meaning is clear; the states control their
respective militias: "[state] governments [...] who could collect the
national will and direct the national force [...] officers appointed
out of the militia, by [the state] governments, and attached both to
them and to the militia..." The author does *not* mean an armed mob.
>Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion,
>that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would
>be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power
>would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
Again, Mr. Madison speaks of England; both Madison and Jefferson were
much further aligned with France than with England; Alexander Hamilton
(the author of Federalist 29) leaned toward the English perspective
and never spoke of "the debased subjects of arbitrary power".
**********
Nations are like humans in that they rise, flourish, and,
subsequently, die. What usually happens when a democracy dies is that
the country becomes ready for a dictator... then, one shows up and is
hailed as a popular savior; in this case, a militia is most often used
against a people instead of for them. Contrary to popular myth,
demagogues do *not* try to control the guns; they go after the media
as purveyors of "fake news" first, taking control under the guise of
disseminating the truth.
****************
About two years later, Mr. Madison would write: "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and, for
some unfathomable reason, many argue that the writer didn't really
mean to say "A well regulated Militia..."; what he meant was a "well
functioning" militia; like a clock that keeps good time[?] Actually,
he meant exactly what he wrote. He meant the well regulated militia
as opposed to a standing army. This differentiation is thematic in
the writings of James Madison until his traumatic experience in 1814.
What the second amendment did was to codify local control of the
militia. After the US militia were thoroughly humiliated in the War
of 1812, the United States moved to a standing army and the second
amendment became an eighteenth century legislative artifact.
One reads the Federalist today to gain an insight into the motivations
of the men most instrumental in drafting the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. In the Federalist, the authors are arguing in favor of the
ratification of the Constitution of 1787; the essays were written
between the writing of the constitution and the first ten amendments
primarily as the collaborative effort of James Madison and Alexander
Hamilton. Federalist 46 is important in that its author is discussing
the militia explicitly as defined in article six of the United States
Document of Confederation. Federalist 35 had recently been published
wherein Mr. Hamilton used the exact words: "well regulated militia".
(When the Federalist was bound and published as a book, #35 was
renumbered as #29.)
Dominating the debate was the locus of power. Would this be with the
states or the federal government? Did the federal government have the
power to levy taxes? And, not least, would the armed forces be
controlled by the states or by the federal government? The latter is
the topic of the second amendment. No place in the discussion is the
individual right to self defense even mentioned; no place is it ever
suggested that "the people" have some right to rise up and overthrow
the constitutional government... as if one would need constitutional
authority to take up arms against the constitution! The idea of
"bearing arms" was never mentioned in any context except the militia.
For your reading pleasure, here is the full text of Federalist No. 46
with some paragraph breaks added.
Federalist No. 46 (James Madison writing; published 1/ 29/1788)
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall
of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal
government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects
of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been
employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to
disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States
should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted
succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should,
throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed
plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the
governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently
behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials,
until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear
to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy,
or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the
sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be
made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the
country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the
federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that
the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to
repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best
computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not
exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one
twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion
would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than
twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near
half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men
chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and
united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and
confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus
circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular
troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful
resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most
inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the
existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a
barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than
any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of
Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear,
the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is
not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake
off their yokes.
But were the people to possess the additional advantages
of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the
national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed
out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them
and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance,
that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily
overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not
insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion,
that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would
be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power
would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
*******************
Discussion:
> The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall
>of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal
>government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects
>of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been
>employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to
>disprove the reality of this danger.
This prefatory paragraph gives the reader no useful information;
essentially, Mr. Madison is asserting that his following content is
intuitively obvious. In the writing of the time, this tactic was
common.
>That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time,
>elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that
>the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically
>pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment;
>that the governments and the people of the States should silently and
>patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials,
>until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear
>to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy,
>or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the
>sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
In this somewhat long sentence, Mr. Madison postulates the idea that
it would take "an uninterrupted succession of men" to subvert the
constitutional protections. Basically, the author is arguing that he
believes this could not possibly happen and that anyone who believes
it could isn't a "genuine patriot" but, instead, is a person
manifesting "the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the
misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal". Here, the reader
learns exactly how Mr. Madison perceives what he terms "the military
establishment"; in the next sentence, he will call it the "regular
army"; elsewhere, he disparagingly refers to a "standing army".
The timeline here (1788) is that what was known as the "Philadelphia
Mutiny" by regular soldiers mustering out of the army who marched on
the capitol demanding their back pay would have been in Mr. Madison's
recent memory; therein, Mr. Madison demanded that the governor of
Pennsylvania call out the state militia to put them down and the
governor did so. Herein, the author is arguing for the ratification
of the 1787 constitutional convention's product; the proposal and
discussion of any "bill of rights" is still several years in the
future. The constitutional document in effect at the time of this
writing was the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781; thus,
when Mr. Madison will later speak of a "militia", he refers to the
definition given in Article Six of this document which reads in part:
"[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."
One other important point that the contemporary reader should note is
that the Articles of Confederation were superseded and augmented by
the Constitution of 1787, but never repealed; therefore, the 1781
definition of a militia remains in effect because the Constitution of
1787 never redefined that term.
> Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be
>made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the
>country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the
>federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that
>the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to
>repel the danger.
Here, Mr. Madison is clearly writing that the source of the threat, as
he sees it, is a "regular army"; the "State governments" will control
the militia as defined under article six of the Document of
Confederation (1781).
>The highest number to which, according to the best
>computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not
>exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one
>twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.
"[According] to the best computation..." would be rendered today as:
"Studies have shown...". Well, studies have shown that any idea
introduced by the phrase: "Studies have shown..." should be ignored.
We do not know to whose "best computation" Mr. Madison refers...
whatever. An important point to note here is that this represents Mr.
Madison's the first recorded use of the term: "to bear arms" and it is
obviously used in a military context; further, the context is given
previously in the same sentence. "To bear arms" is and always has
been a military term!
>This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than
>twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
Yes, if Mr. Madison's 1:25 premise held, then thus would be the 1788
numbers; it's probably not an unreasonable number.
> To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near
>half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men
>chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and
>united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and
>confidence.
This sentence is important because it represents Mr. Madison's first
use of the term: "a militia". Federalist #35 had been published in
the prior weeks. (Federalist #35 was renumbered to #29 when the
documents were compiled and bound.) In Fed. #35, Alexander Hamilton
used the term: "Well regulated militia" as it was defined in Article
Six of the Document of Confederation; Mr. Madison did not propose a
redefinition. The other important point is that this "militia" is
"united and conducted by [state] governments".
Soon, Mr. Madison would become *very* aware of his error of faith in
the militia when he would become the only sitting U.S. President to
command troops in the field as he tried to hold the bridge at
Bladensburg, MD and his vaunted militia panicked and ran, sight
unseen, before the advancing English army; James Madison, the fourth
president of the United States, was forced to run through the streets
of Washington DC with the "debased subjects of arbitrary power" right
behind him... the militia weren't defeated; they broke and ran before
the enemy even came into sight; they were utterly humiliated.
So much for the militia.
>It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever
>be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
Yeah, right! History will not be kind.
>Those who are best acquainted with the last successful
>resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most
>inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Yeah, right again!
> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the
>Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the
>existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
>attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a
>barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than
>any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
.
Since Mr. Madison would later write the second amendment, this is the
sentence most often cited by the apologists for guns; however, the
author obviously speaks of the militia; specifically: "the existence
of [state] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which
the militia officers are appointed..." Mr. Madison never uses the
idea of armed citizens outside of the explicit context of the state
militia.
>Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of
>Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear,
>the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is
>not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake
>off their yokes.
Any time James Madison wrote disparagingly of a "kingdom of Europe",
he always meant England; that was the only country who could have
possibly landed a military force on the American continent and who,
twenty-six years later during his presidency, would do so with
devastating effect as they marched unopposed into Washington DC,
looted the White House, and burned the public buildings.
> But were the people to possess the additional advantages
>of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the
>national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed
>out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them
>and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance,
>that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily
>overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Here, the author's meaning is clear; the states control their
respective militias: "[state] governments [...] who could collect the
national will and direct the national force [...] officers appointed
out of the militia, by [the state] governments, and attached both to
them and to the militia..." The author does *not* mean an armed mob.
>Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion,
>that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would
>be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power
>would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
Again, Mr. Madison speaks of England; both Madison and Jefferson were
much further aligned with France than with England; Alexander Hamilton
(the author of Federalist 29) leaned toward the English perspective
and never spoke of "the debased subjects of arbitrary power".
**********
Nations are like humans in that they rise, flourish, and,
subsequently, die. What usually happens when a democracy dies is that
the country becomes ready for a dictator... then, one shows up and is
hailed as a popular savior; in this case, a militia is most often used
against a people instead of for them. Contrary to popular myth,
demagogues do *not* try to control the guns; they go after the media
as purveyors of "fake news" first, taking control under the guise of
disseminating the truth.
****************
About two years later, Mr. Madison would write: "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and, for
some unfathomable reason, many argue that the writer didn't really
mean to say "A well regulated Militia..."; what he meant was a "well
functioning" militia; like a clock that keeps good time[?] Actually,
he meant exactly what he wrote. He meant the well regulated militia
as opposed to a standing army. This differentiation is thematic in
the writings of James Madison until his traumatic experience in 1814.
What the second amendment did was to codify local control of the
militia. After the US militia were thoroughly humiliated in the War
of 1812, the United States moved to a standing army and the second
amendment became an eighteenth century legislative artifact.
Jones
--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fnmi0bFdcfbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688806 |
!Jones <jones@fobahor.com> wrote: > x-no-idiots: yes > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 19:15:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> You have been shown, and have no counter, for the fact that "bear arms" >> is used only in specific contexts... that do NOT include self defense. >> >> The second amendment specifically mentions the militia and NO other context. >> >> While there is some contention, from what we have seen the general view >> of scholars who look at the subject say the second amendment applied to >> state rights and not individual rights. >> >> We know that many laws have existed since the founding of the country, >> including ones near or at the founding, which made it illegal to even >> have a loaded gun in your house or to do what we now call open carry. >> Some laws not only required tracking of who had guns but required >> training and other even loyalty oaths. NONE of these, as far as we know, >> were challenged on second amendment terms. >> >> Even the Heller case, a 5:4 decision where judicial activism was used, >> specifically notes that there can be limits. >> >> When faced with those facts you point to quotes from >> <https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990729/america-s-founding-fathers-on-the-2a>, >> do not even site your source, and deem the actual evidence to be "bullshit". >> >> Um, OK. > > I have found that the O.P. is unreliable in quoting. A few years ago, > he edited one of my postings making significant semantic changes and > then replied to the edited version. The least he could do is to write > his own stuff. > > The NRA's quotes are all taken completely out of context. For > example, here is an article I wrote on Federalist #46 (fed-46). Now, > fed-46 just isn't that long of a document and they really shouldn't > take one sentence out of the middle. > > **** Previously published material > > One reads the Federalist today to gain an insight into the motivations > of the men most instrumental in drafting the Constitution and the Bill > of Rights. In the Federalist, the authors are arguing in favor of the > ratification of the Constitution of 1787; the essays were written > between the writing of the constitution and the first ten amendments > primarily as the collaborative effort of James Madison and Alexander > Hamilton. Federalist 46 is important in that its author is discussing > the militia explicitly as defined in article six of the United States > Document of Confederation. Federalist 35 had recently been published > wherein Mr. Hamilton used the exact words: "well regulated militia". > (When the Federalist was bound and published as a book, #35 was > renumbered as #29.) > > Dominating the debate was the locus of power. Would this be with the > states or the federal government? Did the federal government have the > power to levy taxes? And, not least, would the armed forces be > controlled by the states or by the federal government? The latter is > the topic of the second amendment. No place in the discussion is the > individual right to self defense even mentioned; no place is it ever > suggested that "the people" have some right to rise up and overthrow > the constitutional government... as if one would need constitutional > authority to take up arms against the constitution! The idea of > "bearing arms" was never mentioned in any context except the militia. > > For your reading pleasure, here is the full text of Federalist No. 46 > with some paragraph breaks added. > > Federalist No. 46 (James Madison writing; published 1/ 29/1788) > > The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall > of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal > government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects > of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been > employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to > disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States > should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted > succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, > throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed > plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the > governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently > behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, > until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear > to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, > or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the > sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. > > Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be > made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the > country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the > federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that > the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to > repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best > computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not > exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one > twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion > would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than > twenty-five or thirty thousand men. > > To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near > half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men > chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and > united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and > confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus > circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular > troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful > resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most > inclined to deny the possibility of it. > > Besides the advantage of being armed, which the > Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the > existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are > attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a > barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than > any which a simple government of any form can admit of. > Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of > Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, > the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is > not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake > off their yokes. > > But were the people to possess the additional advantages > of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the > national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed > out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them > and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, > that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily > overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not > insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, > that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would > be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power > would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. > > ******************* > > Discussion: > >> The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall >> of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal >> government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects >> of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been >> employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to >> disprove the reality of this danger. > > This prefatory paragraph gives the reader no useful information; > essentially, Mr. Madison is asserting that his following content is > intuitively obvious. In the writing of the time, this tactic was > common. > >> That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, >> elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that >> the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically >> pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; >> that the governments and the people of the States should silently and >> patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, >> until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear >> to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, >> or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the >> sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. > > In this somewhat long sentence, Mr. Madison postulates the idea that > it would take "an uninterrupted succession of men" to subvert the > constitutional protections. Basically, the author is arguing that he > believes this could not possibly happen and that anyone who believes > it could isn't a "genuine patriot" but, instead, is a person > manifesting "the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the > misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal". Here, the reader > learns exactly how Mr. Madison perceives what he terms "the military > establishment"; in the next sentence, he will call it the "regular > army"; elsewhere, he disparagingly refers to a "standing army". > > The timeline here (1788) is that what was known as the "Philadelphia > Mutiny" by regular soldiers mustering out of the army who marched on > the capitol demanding their back pay would have been in Mr. Madison's > recent memory; therein, Mr. Madison demanded that the governor of > Pennsylvania call out the state militia to put them down and the > governor did so. Herein, the author is arguing for the ratification > of the 1787 constitutional convention's product; the proposal and > discussion of any "bill of rights" is still several years in the > future. The constitutional document in effect at the time of this > writing was the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781; thus, > when Mr. Madison will later speak of a "militia", he refers to the > definition given in Article Six of this document which reads in part: > "[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." > > One other important point that the contemporary reader should note is > that the Articles of Confederation were superseded and augmented by > the Constitution of 1787, but never repealed; therefore, the 1781 > definition of a militia remains in effect because the Constitution of > 1787 never redefined that term. > >> Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be >> made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the >> country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the >> federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that >> the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to >> repel the danger. > > Here, Mr. Madison is clearly writing that the source of the threat, as > he sees it, is a "regular army"; the "State governments" will control > the militia as defined under article six of the Document of > Confederation (1781). > >> The highest number to which, according to the best >> computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not >> exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one >> twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. > > "[According] to the best computation..." would be rendered today as: > "Studies have shown...". Well, studies have shown that any idea > introduced by the phrase: "Studies have shown..." should be ignored. > We do not know to whose "best computation" Mr. Madison refers... > whatever. An important point to note here is that this represents Mr. > Madison's the first recorded use of the term: "to bear arms" and it is > obviously used in a military context; further, the context is given > previously in the same sentence. "To bear arms" is and always has > been a military term! > >> This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than >> twenty-five or thirty thousand men. > > Yes, if Mr. Madison's 1:25 premise held, then thus would be the 1788 > numbers; it's probably not an unreasonable number. > >> To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near >> half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men >> chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and >> united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and >> confidence. > > This sentence is important because it represents Mr. Madison's first > use of the term: "a militia". Federalist #35 had been published in > the prior weeks. (Federalist #35 was renumbered to #29 when the > documents were compiled and bound.) In Fed. #35, Alexander Hamilton > used the term: "Well regulated militia" as it was defined in Article > Six of the Document of Confederation; Mr. Madison did not propose a > redefinition. The other important point is that this "militia" is > "united and conducted by [state] governments". > > Soon, Mr. Madison would become *very* aware of his error of faith in > the militia when he would become the only sitting U.S. President to > command troops in the field as he tried to hold the bridge at > Bladensburg, MD and his vaunted militia panicked and ran, sight > unseen, before the advancing English army; James Madison, the fourth > president of the United States, was forced to run through the streets > of Washington DC with the "debased subjects of arbitrary power" right > behind him... the militia weren't defeated; they broke and ran before > the enemy even came into sight; they were utterly humiliated. > > So much for the militia. > >> It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever >> be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. > > Yeah, right! History will not be kind. > >> Those who are best acquainted with the last successful >> resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most >> inclined to deny the possibility of it. > > Yeah, right again! > >> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the >> Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the >> existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are >> attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a >> barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than >> any which a simple government of any form can admit of. > . > Since Mr. Madison would later write the second amendment, this is the > sentence most often cited by the apologists for guns; however, the > author obviously speaks of the militia; specifically: "the existence > of [state] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which > the militia officers are appointed..." Mr. Madison never uses the > idea of armed citizens outside of the explicit context of the state > militia. > >> Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of >> Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, >> the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is >> not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake >> off their yokes. > > Any time James Madison wrote disparagingly of a "kingdom of Europe", > he always meant England; that was the only country who could have > possibly landed a military force on the American continent and who, > twenty-six years later during his presidency, would do so with > devastating effect as they marched unopposed into Washington DC, > looted the White House, and burned the public buildings. > >> But were the people to possess the additional advantages >> of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the >> national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed >> out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them >> and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, >> that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily >> overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. > > Here, the author's meaning is clear; the states control their > respective militias: "[state] governments [...] who could collect the > national will and direct the national force [...] officers appointed > out of the militia, by [the state] governments, and attached both to > them and to the militia..." The author does *not* mean an armed mob. > >> Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, >> that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would >> be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power >> would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. > > Again, Mr. Madison speaks of England; both Madison and Jefferson were > much further aligned with France than with England; Alexander Hamilton > (the author of Federalist 29) leaned toward the English perspective > and never spoke of "the debased subjects of arbitrary power". > > ********** > > Nations are like humans in that they rise, flourish, and, > subsequently, die. What usually happens when a democracy dies is that > the country becomes ready for a dictator... then, one shows up and is > hailed as a popular savior; in this case, a militia is most often used > against a people instead of for them. Contrary to popular myth, > demagogues do *not* try to control the guns; they go after the media > as purveyors of "fake news" first, taking control under the guise of > disseminating the truth. > > **************** > > About two years later, Mr. Madison would write: "A well regulated > Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and, for > some unfathomable reason, many argue that the writer didn't really > mean to say "A well regulated Militia..."; what he meant was a "well > functioning" militia; like a clock that keeps good time[?] Actually, > he meant exactly what he wrote. He meant the well regulated militia > as opposed to a standing army. This differentiation is thematic in > the writings of James Madison until his traumatic experience in 1814. > What the second amendment did was to codify local control of the > militia. After the US militia were thoroughly humiliated in the War > of 1812, the United States moved to a standing army and the second > amendment became an eighteenth century legislative artifact. > > One reads the Federalist today to gain an insight into the motivations > of the men most instrumental in drafting the Constitution and the Bill > of Rights. In the Federalist, the authors are arguing in favor of the > ratification of the Constitution of 1787; the essays were written > between the writing of the constitution and the first ten amendments > primarily as the collaborative effort of James Madison and Alexander > Hamilton. Federalist 46 is important in that its author is discussing > the militia explicitly as defined in article six of the United States > Document of Confederation. Federalist 35 had recently been published > wherein Mr. Hamilton used the exact words: "well regulated militia". > (When the Federalist was bound and published as a book, #35 was > renumbered as #29.) > > Dominating the debate was the locus of power. Would this be with the > states or the federal government? Did the federal government have the > power to levy taxes? And, not least, would the armed forces be > controlled by the states or by the federal government? The latter is > the topic of the second amendment. No place in the discussion is the > individual right to self defense even mentioned; no place is it ever > suggested that "the people" have some right to rise up and overthrow > the constitutional government... as if one would need constitutional > authority to take up arms against the constitution! The idea of > "bearing arms" was never mentioned in any context except the militia. > > For your reading pleasure, here is the full text of Federalist No. 46 > with some paragraph breaks added. > > Federalist No. 46 (James Madison writing; published 1/ 29/1788) > > The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall > of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal > government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects > of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been > employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to > disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States > should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted > succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, > throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed > plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the > governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently > behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, > until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear > to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, > or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the > sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. > > Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be > made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the > country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the > federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that > the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to > repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best > computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not > exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one > twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion > would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than > twenty-five or thirty thousand men. > > To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near > half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men > chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and > united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and > confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus > circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular > troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful > resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most > inclined to deny the possibility of it. > > Besides the advantage of being armed, which the > Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the > existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are > attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a > barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than > any which a simple government of any form can admit of. > Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of > Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, > the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is > not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake > off their yokes. > > But were the people to possess the additional advantages > of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the > national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed > out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them > and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, > that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily > overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not > insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, > that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would > be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power > would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. > > ******************* > > Discussion: > >> The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall >> of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal >> government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects >> of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been >> employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to >> disprove the reality of this danger. > > This prefatory paragraph gives the reader no useful information; > essentially, Mr. Madison is asserting that his following content is > intuitively obvious. In the writing of the time, this tactic was > common. > >> That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, >> elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that >> the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically >> pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; >> that the governments and the people of the States should silently and >> patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, >> until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear >> to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, >> or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the >> sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. > > In this somewhat long sentence, Mr. Madison postulates the idea that > it would take "an uninterrupted succession of men" to subvert the > constitutional protections. Basically, the author is arguing that he > believes this could not possibly happen and that anyone who believes > it could isn't a "genuine patriot" but, instead, is a person > manifesting "the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the > misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal". Here, the reader > learns exactly how Mr. Madison perceives what he terms "the military > establishment"; in the next sentence, he will call it the "regular > army"; elsewhere, he disparagingly refers to a "standing army". > > The timeline here (1788) is that what was known as the "Philadelphia > Mutiny" by regular soldiers mustering out of the army who marched on > the capitol demanding their back pay would have been in Mr. Madison's > recent memory; therein, Mr. Madison demanded that the governor of > Pennsylvania call out the state militia to put them down and the > governor did so. Herein, the author is arguing for the ratification > of the 1787 constitutional convention's product; the proposal and > discussion of any "bill of rights" is still several years in the > future. The constitutional document in effect at the time of this > writing was the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781; thus, > when Mr. Madison will later speak of a "militia", he refers to the > definition given in Article Six of this document which reads in part: > "[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." > > One other important point that the contemporary reader should note is > that the Articles of Confederation were superseded and augmented by > the Constitution of 1787, but never repealed; therefore, the 1781 > definition of a militia remains in effect because the Constitution of > 1787 never redefined that term. > >> Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be >> made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the >> country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the >> federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that >> the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to >> repel the danger. > > Here, Mr. Madison is clearly writing that the source of the threat, as > he sees it, is a "regular army"; the "State governments" will control > the militia as defined under article six of the Document of > Confederation (1781). > >> The highest number to which, according to the best >> computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not >> exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one >> twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. > > "[According] to the best computation..." would be rendered today as: > "Studies have shown...". Well, studies have shown that any idea > introduced by the phrase: "Studies have shown..." should be ignored. > We do not know to whose "best computation" Mr. Madison refers... > whatever. An important point to note here is that this represents Mr. > Madison's the first recorded use of the term: "to bear arms" and it is > obviously used in a military context; further, the context is given > previously in the same sentence. "To bear arms" is and always has > been a military term! > >> This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than >> twenty-five or thirty thousand men. > > Yes, if Mr. Madison's 1:25 premise held, then thus would be the 1788 > numbers; it's probably not an unreasonable number. > >> To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near >> half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men >> chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and >> united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and >> confidence. > > This sentence is important because it represents Mr. Madison's first > use of the term: "a militia". Federalist #35 had been published in > the prior weeks. (Federalist #35 was renumbered to #29 when the > documents were compiled and bound.) In Fed. #35, Alexander Hamilton > used the term: "Well regulated militia" as it was defined in Article > Six of the Document of Confederation; Mr. Madison did not propose a > redefinition. The other important point is that this "militia" is > "united and conducted by [state] governments". > > Soon, Mr. Madison would become *very* aware of his error of faith in > the militia when he would become the only sitting U.S. President to > command troops in the field as he tried to hold the bridge at > Bladensburg, MD and his vaunted militia panicked and ran, sight > unseen, before the advancing English army; James Madison, the fourth > president of the United States, was forced to run through the streets > of Washington DC with the "debased subjects of arbitrary power" right > behind him... the militia weren't defeated; they broke and ran before > the enemy even came into sight; they were utterly humiliated. > > So much for the militia. > >> It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever >> be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. > > Yeah, right! History will not be kind. > >> Those who are best acquainted with the last successful >> resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most >> inclined to deny the possibility of it. > > Yeah, right again! > >> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the >> Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the >> existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are >> attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a >> barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than >> any which a simple government of any form can admit of. > . > Since Mr. Madison would later write the second amendment, this is the > sentence most often cited by the apologists for guns; however, the > author obviously speaks of the militia; specifically: "the existence > of [state] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which > the militia officers are appointed..." Mr. Madison never uses the > idea of armed citizens outside of the explicit context of the state > militia. > >> Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of >> Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, >> the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is >> not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake >> off their yokes. > > Any time James Madison wrote disparagingly of a "kingdom of Europe", > he always meant England; that was the only country who could have > possibly landed a military force on the American continent and who, > twenty-six years later during his presidency, would do so with > devastating effect as they marched unopposed into Washington DC, > looted the White House, and burned the public buildings. > >> But were the people to possess the additional advantages >> of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the >> national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed >> out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them >> and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, >> that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily >> overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. > > Here, the author's meaning is clear; the states control their > respective militias: "[state] governments [...] who could collect the > national will and direct the national force [...] officers appointed > out of the militia, by [the state] governments, and attached both to > them and to the militia..." The author does *not* mean an armed mob. > >> Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, >> that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would >> be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power >> would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. > > Again, Mr. Madison speaks of England; both Madison and Jefferson were > much further aligned with France than with England; Alexander Hamilton > (the author of Federalist 29) leaned toward the English perspective > and never spoke of "the debased subjects of arbitrary power". > > ********** > > Nations are like humans in that they rise, flourish, and, > subsequently, die. What usually happens when a democracy dies is that > the country becomes ready for a dictator... then, one shows up and is > hailed as a popular savior; in this case, a militia is most often used > against a people instead of for them. Contrary to popular myth, > demagogues do *not* try to control the guns; they go after the media > as purveyors of "fake news" first, taking control under the guise of > disseminating the truth. > > **************** > > About two years later, Mr. Madison would write: "A well regulated > Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and, for > some unfathomable reason, many argue that the writer didn't really > mean to say "A well regulated Militia..."; what he meant was a "well > functioning" militia; like a clock that keeps good time[?] Actually, > he meant exactly what he wrote. He meant the well regulated militia > as opposed to a standing army. This differentiation is thematic in > the writings of James Madison until his traumatic experience in 1814. > What the second amendment did was to codify local control of the > militia. After the US militia were thoroughly humiliated in the War > of 1812, the United States moved to a standing army and the second > amendment became an eighteenth century legislative artifact. > > Jones > -- > Quod si non verum est, non dicere est. > Go with the actual words and their meanings. And have evidence-based policy. Those words terrify the NRA and their supporters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web