Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #687921 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-31 02:37 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-06-03 09:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 578 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 02:37 -0400
Re:Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:16 +0200
Re: Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 03:51 -0400
Slaughtering concert goers. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-31 05:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 12:06 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 10:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 15:49 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-31 20:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 17:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 16:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 19:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 21:38 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 08:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 22:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 11:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-05-31 19:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-05-31 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 03:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 08:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 11:59 -0700
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ Slaughtering concert goers. ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-01 14:07 -0500
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 18:50 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:00 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:29 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:47 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 00:18 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 09:14 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:48 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:28 -0700
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:14 -0400
Re: ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ ? Snowflake ? Slaughtering concert goers. ? Snowflake ? ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-02 08:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 12:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 17:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:11 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 04:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:12 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 00:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:39 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 18:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:14 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:19 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:34 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 20:26 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-01 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:08 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:35 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 04:54 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 05:06 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:54 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:51 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 11:59 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 16:25 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:28 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 19:45 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:08 -0600
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 23:24 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:12 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:15 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:48 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:00 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:32 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 21:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:49 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:49 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:45 -0700
Permission to breath ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:13 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 20:10 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-06-02 20:36 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:53 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 23:33 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:42 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:08 -0700
Re: Permission to breath ? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:07 -0700
Clarity. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-03 08:52 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 03:46 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:53 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 22:59 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 23:19 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-03 09:10 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:31 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:12 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:26 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:37 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:10 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:54 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 22:19 -0500
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 20:58 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 00:24 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 05:43 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 07:17 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 00:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 16:07 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:30 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:32 +0000
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:34 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:50 -0700
"Natural Rights" aren't always wonderful. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 19:02 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:49 -0700
Depressed Losers, slaughtering consert goers, is "natural" ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:21 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 02:18 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:25 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:38 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:16 -0400
Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 09:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:53 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-02 01:20 -0400
Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-02 06:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 10:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 13:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-02 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-03 07:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 13:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 13:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 04:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 16:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 17:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 17:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-03 20:11 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-03 18:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 03:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:40 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 12:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 00:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 01:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:21 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:30 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:02 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 17:59 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 15:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-04 17:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 15:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-04 23:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:51 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 09:37 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:51 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:27 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 08:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:32 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-06 15:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:15 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:17 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:01 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:32 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-08 05:15 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:49 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:07 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 02:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 21:28 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 19:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-02 01:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:23 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 22:09 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:48 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:44 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:19 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-06-04 02:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:19 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:26 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 01:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:00 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:45 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:39 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:48 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:34 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-05 22:57 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 20:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 06:41 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:29 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:16 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 06:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-08 08:30 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 14:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:07 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:15 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:41 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 04:19 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 02:29 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:38 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 07:58 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 08:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-05 14:58 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 12:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 13:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:47 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:04 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:42 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:46 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 21:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 19:13 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 21:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 22:55 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:47 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 22:44 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 22:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-09 02:13 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 23:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 06:22 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:22 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 13:31 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700
Truth Avoidance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 12:11 -0700
Re: Truth Avoidance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 10:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 12:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:12 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:31 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-09 18:41 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:36 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 17:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 20:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 23:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 08:36 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 11:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 00:16 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 02:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 12:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:20 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 16:43 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:33 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:06 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:11 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:17 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-07 22:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:49 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:04 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:23 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:03 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 11:55 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 23:07 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:00 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:12 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:07 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 17:38 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-05 22:45 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-06 04:18 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 16:59 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:17 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 17:10 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-06-05 18:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-05 20:36 -0500
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 09:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:39 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 13:29 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 11:09 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-01 17:20 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 14:35 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-01 23:08 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 23:15 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 11:42 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 14:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-02 20:37 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 17:57 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 18:30 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:51 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-02 19:32 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-06-05 00:09 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:12 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:59 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 15:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:24 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:01 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 19:51 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 16:56 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 20:21 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:24 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-06-03 23:36 -0400
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:14 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 20:28 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:58 -0600
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:02 -0700
Re: Slaughtering concert goers. !Jones <jones@fobahor.com> - 2018-06-04 23:17 -0500
Re: Chelsea Handler says here armed guards don't kill children! Dave Zeeman <arougroutinette@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 09:06 -0700
Page 23 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 29 Next page →
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 08:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pfgrpc$7p5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689648 |
In news:fo29a6Fkd61U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. >>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. >>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! >>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first >>>>>> time the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... >>>>> Yeah, that's the one! >>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>> specific keywords. >>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. >>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. >>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... >> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. >> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported by >> various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. >> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? > Why would you call research and historical fact opinion? Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary Committee?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 15:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo2ba6Fkp7dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689651 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:fo29a6Fkd61U1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:fo19ubFehauU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> On 6/8/18 11:13 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:pffpgb$5bm$3@dont-email.me... >>>>>> In news:fo15klFcgkoU3@mid.individual.net, >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 6/8/18 10:02 PM, max headroom wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> All of it... because you can't. > >>>>>>>>> Pick your favorite part. Or where you think you make the best >>>>>>>>> point. It gets tiring rehashing the same long list of things. > >>>>>>>> My favorite part was when Scout blew your "new interpretation in >>>>>>>> 2008" lie out of the water! > >>>>>>> The Heller case is pretty easy to reference, and is the first >>>>>>> time the new interpretation was offered by the SCOTUS.... > >>>>>> Yeah, that's the one! > >>>>> Have you noticed how the responses have little to actually do with >>>>> what is actually being replied to other than referencing a few >>>>> specific keywords. > >>>>> But have fun with that programmed merry-go-round. > >>>>> I smacked down it's lies for the lurkers, if any, and moved on. > >>>> At this point there is no real discussion. I was asked to back the >>>> following points. I did. There was no real counter ... > >>> That you would acknowledge, much less try to refute. > >>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted >>> your claims, supported by >>> various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. > >>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? > >> Why would you call research and historical fact opinion? > > Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the > Miller decision and the Heller > decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to > the Senate Judiciary > Committee? > > > I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. History begins before that time and offers very important context. And in that very controversial 5:4 decision they said things of the meaning of “bear arms” which the evidence shows is not true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 09:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pfguui$rj4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689655 |
In news:fo2ba6Fkp7dU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the Miller decision and the >> Heller decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >> Judiciary Committee? > I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. > History begins before that time and offers very important context. > And in that very controversial 5:4 decision they said things of the > meaning of "bear arms" which the evidence shows is not true. And the rest?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 09:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo2essFlemoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689668 |
On 6/9/18 9:23 AM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fo2ba6Fkp7dU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in the Miller decision and the >>> Heller decision, and the 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate >>> Judiciary Committee? > >> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. > >> History begins before that time and offers very important context. >> And in that very controversial 5:4 decision they said things of the >> meaning of "bear arms" which the evidence shows is not true. > > And the rest? > > Wwhy did you ignore my question: "Why would you call research and historical fact opinion?" You clearly did this. So why? As far as the 1982 report, I have not read it all. I doubt you have either: <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/rkba.htm>. Looking at it, I see Orrin G. Hatch starts the document and speaks of how every free person should be armed. Do you agree with this? Do you think convicted felons, upon release from prison and now free, should be armed? Do you agree that at the start of the country: ----- that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms... ----- The entire populace? Blacks? Non-land-owning men? Women? No. It was a tiny percent of the population... the "elite" who could be trusted to control others. Is that really something you can support? But more importantly do you trust a document which gets something so fundamental to the start of our country so profoundly wrong? And it says: ----- If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying ----- But we have many examples of gun laws working. This document references some: <https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ> So it is wrong there, too. Then there is this: ----- Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the right to keep and bear arms ----- But this is by someone who backed the RESTRICTION of research into how to reduce the impact of guns on death and harm. It is not an honest statement at all. And the bias is extreme: ----- In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of freedoms to submit their views. ----- He is claiming that those who understand the rights in different ways are opposes to rights. This is a direct lie on his part. The he speaks of allowing the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence, to have a say. The NRA! They are not a government organization nor do they have ANY authority on the meaning of the second amendment. They are not an impartial voice. On and on... it is clearly a very biased report, right from the start. Moving on from Hatch's very clearly biased comments we get to Dennis DeConcini, who pulls quotes in from out of context and tries to push the AZ constitution as applying to the US as a whole. To his credit, though, he does speak of how things have changed over time: ----- All Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to the States came in the last century, when constitutional law was far different than it is today. ----- -- 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 | 2018-06-09 10:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pfh2op$jr2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689675 |
In news:fo2essFlemoU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/9/18 9:23 AM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fo2ba6Fkp7dU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported >>>>>> by various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. >>>>>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? (crickets) >>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in >>>> the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>> Committee? >>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in >>> 2008. >>> History begins before that time and offers very important context. >>> And in that very controversial 5:4 decision they said things of the >>> meaning of "bear arms" which the evidence shows is not true. >> And the rest? > Wwhy did you ignore my question: > "Why would you call research and historical fact opinion?" > You clearly did this. So why? Why did you ignore mine?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 10:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo2he4FcgkoU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689681 |
On 6/9/18 10:29 AM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fo2essFlemoU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/9/18 9:23 AM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fo2ba6Fkp7dU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> You are correct, though, that there is no discussion. You have posted your claims, supported >>>>>>> by various opinion cites, and that is that. Rinse and repeat. > >>>>>>> Does that really work in sci.physics or comp.os.linux.advocacy? > > > > (crickets) > > > >>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in >>>>> the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>>> Committee? > >>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in >>>> 2008. > >>>> History begins before that time and offers very important context. >>>> And in that very controversial 5:4 decision they said things of the >>>> meaning of "bear arms" which the evidence shows is not true. > >>> And the rest? > >> Wwhy did you ignore my question: > >> "Why would you call research and historical fact opinion?" > >> You clearly did this. So why? > > Why did you ignore mine? > > I did not. At all. But you refuse to answer that question. That is generally how these discussions go... you demand responses and I happily offer them, and you refuse to answer questions then insist you are right. Quite telling of how even you know your argument is weak. -- 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 | 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pfi56k$l7i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689675 |
In news:fo2essFlemoU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/9/18 9:23 AM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fo2ba6Fkp7dU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in >>>> the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>> Committee? >>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in >>> 2008. >>> History begins before that time and offers very important context. >>> And in that very controversial 5:4 decision they said things of the >>> meaning of "bear arms" which the evidence shows is not true. >> And the rest? > Wwhy did you ignore my question: > "Why would you call research and historical fact opinion?" > You clearly did this. So why? I found it shoddy and disputable. > As far as the 1982 report, I have not read it all. I doubt you have > either: <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/rkba.htm>. Looking at it, I see > Orrin G. Hatch starts the document and speaks of how every free person > should be armed. Do you agree with this? Do you think convicted > felons, upon release from prison and now free, should be armed?... Depends on the crime. Financial crimes, for instance, seldom involve violence. > ... Do you agree that at the start of the country: > ----- > that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had > reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of > bearing arms... > ----- > The entire populace? Blacks? Non-land-owning men? Women? No. It was a > tiny percent of the population... the "elite" who could be trusted to > control others.... How do you jump to this conclusion? Is that all you read? "Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet 'Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican' worried that the people might be disarmed 'by modeling the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the people capable of bearing arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young and ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, the former will answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenseless.' He proposed that 'the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and guard against a select militia,' adding that 'to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.' "The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a State right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but rather to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Lee, in particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights. He would hardly have meant the second amendment to apply only to the select militias he so feared and disliked. "Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia convention, George Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted 'to disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way to enslave them', while Patrick Henry observed that, 'The great object is that every man be armed' and 'everyone who is able may have a gun.... "A pamphlet written by Noah Webster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, observed. "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." > ... Is that really something you can support? But more > importantly do you trust a document which gets something so > fundamental to the start of our country so profoundly wrong? How can I trust a someone who gets something so fundamental to the start of our country so profoundly wrong? > And it says: > ----- > If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation > should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime > rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a > century and a half of trying > ----- > But we have many examples of gun laws working. This document references > some: <https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ> > So it is wrong there, too.... Cool. Means we don't need any more. But I notice you like to cite a lot of medical sources and not law or criminology studies. Try a change of pace: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128708321321 According to this description, (found at https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis) - - [A] 2012 study from Arizona State University and the University of Cincinnati published in Crime and Delinquency, "The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis," reviewed the effectiveness of dozens of policies designed to reduce gun violence in the United States. The researchers examined 29 rigorous studies between 1983 and 2005 that assessed the effectiveness of four major areas of gun violence interventions: information, training, and storage campaigns; gun buy-back programs; gun laws; and law enforcement campaigns. Key study findings include: a.. "The studies included in this analysis, on average, indicated a weak to moderate impact of these policies and programs on gun violence." b.. While all interventions reduced gun crime, gun buy-back programs and stricter gun laws were found to be only marginally effective. Law enforcement efforts, however, were found to significantly reduce gun-related crimes. c.. Of these legal interventions, probation strategies - increased contact with police, probation officers and social workers - proved most effective at curtailing gun violence; policing strategies and community programs were moderately effective, while "prosecutorial strategies" - harsher sentences and restricted bail opportunities - showed the least promise. d.. Mandatory firearms waiting periods and background checks were shown to have no statistical effects on gun crimes, while bans on specific weapons were moderately effective. e.. "The effect of safe-storage laws show they have been ineffective at reducing gun crime. The [studies] examined . found that, if anything, safe storage laws work to increase crime." The researchers conclude that "law enforcement programs are clearly more effective than gun laws." They note that the "most effective programs combined both punitive and supportive strategies to effectively reduce gun violence.. The assessment of [gun violence prevention programs] provides clear guidance concerning which approaches are most likely to result in enhanced public safety - an outcome that should be attractive to policy makers regardless of their ideological persuasion." > ... Then there is this: > ----- > Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the > Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to > study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the > right to keep and bear arms > ----- > But this is by someone who backed the RESTRICTION of research into how > to reduce the impact of guns on death and harm. It is not an honest > statement at all. Yours sure isn't, assuming you're referring to the Dickey amendment which, as all sentient lifeforms know, only forbids the CDC from promoting or advocating for more gun control laws. > And the bias is extreme: Oh, the irony! > ----- > In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, > we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of > freedoms to submit their views. > ----- > He is claiming that those who understand the rights in different ways > are opposes to rights. This is a direct lie on his part. The he speaks > of allowing the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence,... As does the Brady Bunch. > ... to have a say. The NRA! They are not a government organization nor do they have > ANY authority on the meaning of the second amendment. They are not an impartial voice. A pity that you read no further. You might have seen that they also included -- "Does the Second Amendment mean what it says?, by David J. Steinberg, executive director, National Council for a Responsible Firearms policy. "National Coalition to ban handguns, statement on the Second Amendment, by Michael K. Beard, executive director, and Samuel S. Fields, legal affairs coordinator, National Coalition to Ban Handguns." Looks like Orrin Hatch was actually a lot more impartial than you! > On and on... it is clearly a very biased report, right from the start. Because you didn't like it. > Moving on from Hatch's very clearly biased comments we get to Dennis > DeConcini, who pulls quotes in from out of context and tries to push > the AZ constitution as applying to the US as a whole.... Look, if you're going to think with your ovaries instead of your brains, don't be surprised if you come off looking like a hysterical ninny. DeConcini made no such assertion. Do you even know what "for example" means? > ... To his credit, though, he does speak of how things have changed over time: > ----- > All Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to > the States came in the last century, when constitutional law was far > different than it is today. > ----- That's true. The fourteenth amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to the states.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 21:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo3mhkFsa45U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689841 |
On 6/9/18 8:16 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:fo2essFlemoU1@mid.individual.net, > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 6/9/18 9:23 AM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fo2ba6Fkp7dU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > >>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in >>>>> the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>>> Committee? > >>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in >>>> 2008. > >>>> History begins before that time and offers very important context. >>>> And in that very controversial 5:4 decision they said things of the >>>> meaning of "bear arms" which the evidence shows is not true. > >>> And the rest? > >> Wwhy did you ignore my question: > >> "Why would you call research and historical fact opinion?" > >> You clearly did this. So why? > > I found it shoddy and disputable. You find historical fact to be "shoddy and disputable". I think that sums it up well! >> As far as the 1982 report, I have not read it all. I doubt you have >> either: <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/rkba.htm>. Looking at it, I see >> Orrin G. Hatch starts the document and speaks of how every free person >> should be armed. Do you agree with this? Do you think convicted >> felons, upon release from prison and now free, should be armed?... > > Depends on the crime. Financial crimes, for instance, seldom involve violence. Often many people are harmed by it... but that is a discussion for another day. :) >> ... Do you agree that at the start of the country: >> ----- >> that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had >> reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of >> bearing arms... >> ----- >> The entire populace? Blacks? Non-land-owning men? Women? No. It was a >> tiny percent of the population... the "elite" who could be trusted to >> control others.... > > How do you jump to this conclusion? Is that all you read? How did I jump to the conclusion that not all were welcome to have arms? Sigh. And then you go off topic. You are just pushing off topic questions to avoid responding. How amazing of you! > "Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet 'Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican' > worried that the people might be disarmed 'by modeling the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth > part of the people capable of bearing arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and > those the young and ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, the former > will answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenseless.' He proposed that > 'the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and guard against a select militia,' adding that 'to > preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be > taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.' Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? > "The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear indication that the > framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a State right to maintain formed groups > similar to the National Guard, but rather to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and > bear arms. Lee, in particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights. He would hardly > have meant the second amendment to apply only to the select militias he so feared and disliked. Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? > "Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia convention, George Mason, drafter of > the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted 'to disarm the people - that was > the best and most effective way to enslave them', while Patrick Henry observed that, 'The great > object is that every man be armed' and 'everyone who is able may have a gun.... > > "A pamphlet written by Noah Webster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, observed. > > "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom > in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole > body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can > be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." And that makes you think blacks and women had the right to arms? >> ... Is that really something you can support? But more >> importantly do you trust a document which gets something so >> fundamental to the start of our country so profoundly wrong? > > How can I trust a someone who gets something so fundamental to the start of our country so > profoundly wrong? So no answer from you. Quite telling. Simple fact: women and blacks, except in rare cases, were not allowed to have guns. The idea that this right was for "everyone" is absurd. It was HEAVILY limited. It most certainly was not the "entire populace". That is a gross twisting of historic fact. >> And it says: >> ----- >> If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation >> should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime >> rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a >> century and a half of trying >> ----- > >> But we have many examples of gun laws working. This document references >> some: <https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ> > >> So it is wrong there, too.... > > Cool. Means we don't need any more. That is like saying we should have stopped improving cars and roads when they death rates of vehicular accidents was reduced. We did not... we KEPT and KEEP working on improvements. Your claim that the improvement we have seen (gun deaths have gone done... though they are back up over the last year or so) means we should stop working to improve a clearly bad situation is not rational. The right to life matters! > But I notice you like to cite a lot of medical sources and not law or criminology studies. The claim was these laws do not work. Evidence contradicts that... at least SOME of these laws do. That was my point. It is a correct point. > Try a > change of pace: > > http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128708321321 > > According to this description, (found at > https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis) - > - > > [A] 2012 study from Arizona State University and the University of Cincinnati published in Crime and > Delinquency, "The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A > Meta-Analysis," reviewed the effectiveness of dozens of policies designed to reduce gun violence in > the United States. The researchers examined 29 rigorous studies between 1983 and 2005 that assessed > the effectiveness of four major areas of gun violence interventions: information, training, and > storage campaigns; gun buy-back programs; gun laws; and law enforcement campaigns. > > Key study findings include: > > a.. "The studies included in this analysis, on average, indicated a weak to moderate impact of > these policies and programs on gun violence." > b.. While all interventions reduced gun crime, gun buy-back programs and stricter gun laws were > found to be only marginally effective. Law enforcement efforts, however, were found to significantly > reduce gun-related crimes. > c.. Of these legal interventions, probation strategies - increased contact with police, probation > officers and social workers - proved most effective at curtailing gun violence; policing strategies > and community programs were moderately effective, while "prosecutorial strategies" - harsher > sentences and restricted bail opportunities - showed the least promise. > d.. Mandatory firearms waiting periods and background checks were shown to have no statistical > effects on gun crimes, while bans on specific weapons were moderately effective. > e.. "The effect of safe-storage laws show they have been ineffective at reducing gun crime. The > [studies] examined . found that, if anything, safe storage laws work to increase crime." > The researchers conclude that "law enforcement programs are clearly more effective than gun laws." > They note that the "most effective programs combined both punitive and supportive strategies to > effectively reduce gun violence.. The assessment of [gun violence prevention programs] provides > clear guidance concerning which approaches are most likely to result in enhanced public safety - an > outcome that should be attractive to policy makers regardless of their ideological persuasion." You moved goal posts to crime only, and even then noted your hand-picked study showed SOME level of effectiveness... This does not change the fact that evidence shows laws CAN reduce harm tied to guns. >> ... Then there is this: >> ----- >> Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the >> Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to >> study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the >> right to keep and bear arms >> ----- > >> But this is by someone who backed the RESTRICTION of research into how >> to reduce the impact of guns on death and harm. It is not an honest >> statement at all. > > Yours sure isn't, assuming you're referring to the Dickey amendment which, as all sentient lifeforms > know, only forbids the CDC from promoting or advocating for more gun control laws. This has been covered in the past: it was an active effort to stop research (and it worked). >> And the bias is extreme: > > Oh, the irony! > >> ----- >> In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, >> we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of >> freedoms to submit their views. >> ----- > >> He is claiming that those who understand the rights in different ways >> are opposes to rights. This is a direct lie on his part. The he speaks >> of allowing the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence,... > > As does the Brady Bunch. What? How about Gilligan's Island? >> ... to have a say. The NRA! They are not a government organization nor do they have >> ANY authority on the meaning of the second amendment. They are not an impartial voice. > > A pity that you read no further. A direct lie on your part. > You might have seen that they also included -- > > "Does the Second Amendment mean what it says?, by David J. Steinberg, executive director, National > Council for a Responsible Firearms policy. > > "National Coalition to ban handguns, statement on the Second Amendment, by Michael K. Beard, > executive director, and Samuel S. Fields, legal affairs coordinator, National Coalition to Ban > Handguns." > > Looks like Orrin Hatch was actually a lot more impartial than you! As shown, he was not at all impartial. >> On and on... it is clearly a very biased report, right from the start. > > Because you didn't like it. My like or dislike of is not relevant. >> Moving on from Hatch's very clearly biased comments we get to Dennis >> DeConcini, who pulls quotes in from out of context and tries to push >> the AZ constitution as applying to the US as a whole.... > > Look, if you're going to think with your ovaries instead of your brains, Misogynistic insults serve only to show your bigotry. > don't be surprised if you > come off looking like a hysterical ninny. DeConcini made no such assertion. Do you even know what > "for example" means? State law is not an example of federal and does not show the meaning of the Bill of Rights. >> ... To his credit, though, he does speak of how things have changed over time: >> ----- >> All Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to >> the States came in the last century, when constitutional law was far >> different than it is today. >> ----- > > That's true. The fourteenth amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to the states. And the meaning of the second amendment was far different, too. I am against judicial activism changing the meaning of laws. -- 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 | 2018-06-10 14:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <pfk5gg$pau$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689848 |
In news:fo3mhkFsa45U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 6/9/18 8:16 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:fo2essFlemoU1@mid.individual.net, >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> On 6/9/18 9:23 AM, max headroom wrote: >>>> In news:fo2ba6Fkp7dU1@mid.individual.net, >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history in >>>>>> the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>>>> Committee? >>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in >>>>> 2008. >>>>> History begins before that time and offers very important context. >>>>> And in that very controversial 5:4 decision they said things of >>>>> the meaning of "bear arms" which the evidence shows is not true. >>>> And the rest? >>> Wwhy did you ignore my question: >>> "Why would you call research and historical fact opinion?" >>> You clearly did this. So why? >> I found it shoddy and disputable. > You find historical fact to be "shoddy and disputable". No, I found your sources shoddy and disputable. > I think that sums it up well! As do I. >>> As far as the 1982 report, I have not read it all. I doubt you have >>> either: <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/rkba.htm>. Looking at it, I see >>> Orrin G. Hatch starts the document and speaks of how every free >>> person should be armed. Do you agree with this? Do you think >>> convicted felons, upon release from prison and now free, should be armed?... >> Depends on the crime. Financial crimes, for instance, seldom involve >> violence. > Often many people are harmed by it... but that is a discussion for > another day. :) >>> ... Do you agree that at the start of the country: >>> ----- >>> that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had >>> reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable >>> of bearing arms... >>> ----- >>> The entire populace? Blacks? Non-land-owning men? Women? No. It was >>> a tiny percent of the population... the "elite" who could be trusted >>> to control others.... >> How do you jump to this conclusion? Is that all you read? > How did I jump to the conclusion that not all were welcome to have arms? > Sigh. Exactly. If you can't explain yourself, just say so. > And then you go off topic. You are just pushing off topic questions to > avoid responding. How amazing of you! Oh, the irony! You accuse me of your actions! >> "Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet 'Letters from the Federal Farmer >> to the Republican' worried that the people might be disarmed 'by modeling >> the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the people capable of bearing >> arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young and >> ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, the former will >> answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenseless.' He >> proposed that 'the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and guard against a >> select militia,' adding that 'to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole >> body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, >> how to use them.' > Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." >> "The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear >> indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a State >> right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but rather to >> protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Lee, in >> particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights. He would hardly >> have meant the second amendment to apply only to the select militias he so feared >> and disliked. > Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." >> "Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia convention, George >> Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having >> plotted 'to disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way to >> enslave them', while Patrick Henry observed that, 'The great object is that every >> man be armed' and 'everyone who is able may have a gun.... >> "A pamphlet written by Noah Webster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward >> ratification, observed. >> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in >> almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust >> laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute >> a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, >> raised in the United States." > And that makes you think blacks and women had the right to arms? Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." >>> ... Is that really something you can support? But more importantly do you trust a >>> document which gets something so fundamental to the start of our country so >>> profoundly wrong? >> How can I trust a someone who gets something so fundamental to the start of our >> country so profoundly wrong? > So no answer from you. Quite telling. Then let me rephrase it-- I can't trust a someone who gets something so fundamental to the start of our country so profoundly wrong. > Simple fact: women and blacks, except in rare cases, were not allowed to > have guns. The idea that this right was for "everyone" is absurd. It was > HEAVILY limited. It most certainly was not the "entire populace". That > is a gross twisting of historic fact. Then you should have no trouble proving that. >>> And it says: >>> ----- >>> If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation >>> should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of >>> crime >>> rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a >>> century and a half of trying >>> ----- >>> But we have many examples of gun laws working. This document >>> references >>> some: https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ >>> So it is wrong there, too.... >> Cool. Means we don't need any more. > That is like saying we should have stopped improving cars and roads when > they death rates of vehicular accidents was reduced. We did not... we > KEPT and KEEP working on improvements. Oh, I see: you want to see improvements in the mechanisms. Well, me too. > Your claim that the improvement we have seen (gun deaths have gone > done... though they are back up over the last year or so) means we > should stop working to improve a clearly bad situation is not rational. I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. > The right to life matters! >> But I notice you like to cite a lot of medical sources and not law >> or criminology studies. > The claim was these laws do not work. Evidence contradicts that... at > least SOME of these laws do. That was my point. It is a correct point. I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. >> Try a change of pace: >> http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128708321321 >> According to this description, (found at >> https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis) >> - - >> [A] 2012 study from Arizona State University and the University of Cincinnati >> published in Crime and Delinquency, "The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs >> That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis," reviewed the >> effectiveness of dozens of policies designed to reduce gun violence in the United >> States. The researchers examined 29 rigorous studies between 1983 and 2005 that >> assessed the effectiveness of four major areas of gun violence interventions: >> information, training, and storage campaigns; gun buy-back programs; gun laws; and >> law enforcement campaigns. >> Key study findings include: >> a.. "The studies included in this analysis, on average, indicated a weak to >> moderate impact of these policies and programs on gun violence." >> b.. While all interventions reduced gun crime, gun buy-back programs and >> stricter gun laws were found to be only marginally effective. Law enforcement >> efforts, however, were found to significantly reduce gun-related crimes. >> c.. Of these legal interventions, probation strategies - increased contact with >> police, probation officers and social workers - proved most effective at >> curtailing gun violence; policing strategies and community programs were >> moderately effective, while "prosecutorial strategies" - harsher sentences and >> restricted bail opportunities - showed the least promise. >> d.. Mandatory firearms waiting periods and background checks were shown to have >> no statistical effects on gun crimes, while bans on specific weapons were >> moderately effective. >> e.. "The effect of safe-storage laws show they have been ineffective at >> reducing gun crime. The [studies] examined . found that, if anything, safe storage >> laws work to increase crime." >> The researchers conclude that "law enforcement programs are clearly more effective >> than gun laws." They note that the "most effective programs combined both punitive >> and supportive strategies to effectively reduce gun violence.. The assessment of >> [gun violence prevention programs] provides clear guidance concerning which >> approaches are most likely to result in enhanced public safety - an outcome that >> should be attractive to policy makers regardless of their ideological persuasion." > You moved goal posts to crime only, and even then noted your hand-picked > study showed SOME level of effectiveness... Aren't we talking about injuries occurring during violent crimes? Or are we talking about the Supreme Court affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms? > This does not change the fact that evidence shows laws CAN reduce harm > tied to guns. No, they can't Law enforcement can, and probation strategies most of all. >>> ... Then there is this: >>> ----- >>> Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the >>> Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to >>> study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the >>> right to keep and bear arms >>> ----- >>> But this is by someone who backed the RESTRICTION of research into how to reduce >>> the impact of guns on death and harm. It is not an honest statement at all. >> Yours sure isn't, assuming you're referring to the Dickey amendment which, as all >> sentient lifeforms know, only forbids the CDC from promoting or advocating for >> more gun control laws. > This has been covered in the past: it was an active effort to stop research (and it > worked). It was an effort to stop the CDC from promoting and advocating gun control. Period. >>> And the bias is extreme: >> Oh, the irony! >>> ----- >>> In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, >>> we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition >>> of freedoms to submit their views. >>> ----- >>> He is claiming that those who understand the rights in different ways >>> are opposes to rights. This is a direct lie on his part. The he speaks >>> of allowing the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence,... >> As does the Brady Bunch. > What? How about Gilligan's Island? How about Everytown for Gun Safety? >>> ... to have a say. The NRA! They are not a government organization >>> nor do they have ANY authority on the meaning of the second >>> amendment. They are not an impartial voice. >> A pity that you read no further. > A direct lie on your part. Then why did you fail to mention National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy and National Coalition to Ban Handguns? >> You might have seen that they also included -- >> "Does the Second Amendment mean what it says?, by David J. Steinberg, >> executive director, National Council for a Responsible Firearms policy. >> "National Coalition to ban handguns, statement on the Second Amendment, by Michael >> K. Beard, executive director, and Samuel S. Fields, legal affairs coordinator, >> National Coalition to Ban Handguns." >> Looks like Orrin Hatch was actually a lot more impartial than you! > As shown, he was not at all impartial. As shown, you're a liar. >>> On and on... it is clearly a very biased report, right from the start. >> Because you didn't like it. > My like or dislike of is not relevant. My point exactly. >>> Moving on from Hatch's very clearly biased comments we get to Dennis >>> DeConcini, who pulls quotes in from out of context and tries to push >>> the AZ constitution as applying to the US as a whole.... >> Look, if you're going to think with your ovaries instead of your brains, > Misogynistic insults serve only to show your bigotry. >> don't be surprised if you come off looking like a hysterical ninny. DeConcini made >> no such assertion. Do you even know what "for example" means? > State law is not an example of federal and does not show the meaning of the Bill of > Rights. He never claimed it does. He used the Arizona constitution to illustrate "[t]he right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society." >>> ... To his credit, though, he does speak of how things have changed over >>> time: >>> ----- >>> All Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to >>> the States came in the last century, when constitutional law was far >>> different than it is today. >>> ----- >> That's true. The fourteenth amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to the states. > And the meaning of the second amendment was far different, too. Nope. Hasn't changed a bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 14:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo5l05F9hajU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689920 |
On 6/10/18 2:33 PM, max headroom wrote: ... >> You find historical fact to be "shoddy and disputable". > > No, I found your sources shoddy and disputable. Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK. But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others). Those include: * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free ex-felons often are denied arms. * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace" which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a country. [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to guns... completely disingenuous of you] * It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so they know this claim of theirs is a lie. * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so. * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun violence and other harm. * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That is absurd. [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest of you.] Those are simple facts... from the document you brought up and suggested I look at. Maybe you should look at it. :) >> I think that sums it up well! > > As do I. > >>>> As far as the 1982 report, I have not read it all. I doubt you have >>>> either: <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/rkba.htm>. Looking at it, I see >>>> Orrin G. Hatch starts the document and speaks of how every free >>>> person should be armed. Do you agree with this? Do you think >>>> convicted felons, upon release from prison and now free, should be armed?... > >>> Depends on the crime. Financial crimes, for instance, seldom involve >>> violence. > >> Often many people are harmed by it... but that is a discussion for >> another day. :) > >>>> ... Do you agree that at the start of the country: >>>> ----- >>>> that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had >>>> reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable >>>> of bearing arms... >>>> ----- >>>> The entire populace? Blacks? Non-land-owning men? Women? No. It was >>>> a tiny percent of the population... the "elite" who could be trusted >>>> to control others.... > >>> How do you jump to this conclusion? Is that all you read? > >> How did I jump to the conclusion that not all were welcome to have arms? >> Sigh. > > Exactly. If you can't explain yourself, just say so. > >> And then you go off topic. You are just pushing off topic questions to >> avoid responding. How amazing of you! > > Oh, the irony! You accuse me of your actions! > >>> "Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet 'Letters from the Federal Farmer >>> to the Republican' worried that the people might be disarmed 'by modeling >>> the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the people capable of bearing >>> arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young and >>> ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, the former will >>> answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenseless.' He >>> proposed that 'the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and guard against a >>> select militia,' adding that 'to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole >>> body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, >>> how to use them.' > >> Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? > > Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." > >>> "The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear >>> indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a State >>> right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but rather to >>> protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Lee, in >>> particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights. He would hardly >>> have meant the second amendment to apply only to the select militias he so feared >>> and disliked. > >> Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? > > Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." > >>> "Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia convention, George >>> Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having >>> plotted 'to disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way to >>> enslave them', while Patrick Henry observed that, 'The great object is that every >>> man be armed' and 'everyone who is able may have a gun.... > >>> "A pamphlet written by Noah Webster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward >>> ratification, observed. > >>> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in >>> almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust >>> laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute >>> a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, >>> raised in the United States." > >> And that makes you think blacks and women had the right to arms? > > Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." > >>>> ... Is that really something you can support? But more importantly do you trust a >>>> document which gets something so fundamental to the start of our country so >>>> profoundly wrong? > >>> How can I trust a someone who gets something so fundamental to the start of our >>> country so profoundly wrong? > >> So no answer from you. Quite telling. > > Then let me rephrase it-- I can't trust a someone who gets something so fundamental > to the start of > our country so profoundly wrong. > >> Simple fact: women and blacks, except in rare cases, were not allowed to >> have guns. The idea that this right was for "everyone" is absurd. It was >> HEAVILY limited. It most certainly was not the "entire populace". That >> is a gross twisting of historic fact. > > Then you should have no trouble proving that. > >>>> And it says: >>>> ----- >>>> If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation >>>> should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of >>>> crime >>>> rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a >>>> century and a half of trying >>>> ----- > >>>> But we have many examples of gun laws working. This document >>>> references >>>> some: https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ > >>>> So it is wrong there, too.... > >>> Cool. Means we don't need any more. > >> That is like saying we should have stopped improving cars and roads when >> they death rates of vehicular accidents was reduced. We did not... we >> KEPT and KEEP working on improvements. > > Oh, I see: you want to see improvements in the mechanisms. Well, me too. > >> Your claim that the improvement we have seen (gun deaths have gone >> done... though they are back up over the last year or so) means we >> should stop working to improve a clearly bad situation is not rational. > > I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. > >> The right to life matters! > >>> But I notice you like to cite a lot of medical sources and not law >>> or criminology studies. > >> The claim was these laws do not work. Evidence contradicts that... at >> least SOME of these laws do. That was my point. It is a correct point. > > I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. > >>> Try a change of pace: > >>> http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128708321321 > >>> According to this description, (found at >>> https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis) >>> - - > >>> [A] 2012 study from Arizona State University and the University of Cincinnati >>> published in Crime and Delinquency, "The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs >>> That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis," reviewed the >>> effectiveness of dozens of policies designed to reduce gun violence in the United >>> States. The researchers examined 29 rigorous studies between 1983 and 2005 that >>> assessed the effectiveness of four major areas of gun violence interventions: >>> information, training, and storage campaigns; gun buy-back programs; gun laws; and >>> law enforcement campaigns. > >>> Key study findings include: > >>> a.. "The studies included in this analysis, on average, indicated a weak to >>> moderate impact of these policies and programs on gun violence." >>> b.. While all interventions reduced gun crime, gun buy-back programs and >>> stricter gun laws were found to be only marginally effective. Law enforcement >>> efforts, however, were found to significantly reduce gun-related crimes. >>> c.. Of these legal interventions, probation strategies - increased contact with >>> police, probation officers and social workers - proved most effective at >>> curtailing gun violence; policing strategies and community programs were >>> moderately effective, while "prosecutorial strategies" - harsher sentences and >>> restricted bail opportunities - showed the least promise. >>> d.. Mandatory firearms waiting periods and background checks were shown to have >>> no statistical effects on gun crimes, while bans on specific weapons were >>> moderately effective. >>> e.. "The effect of safe-storage laws show they have been ineffective at >>> reducing gun crime. The [studies] examined . found that, if anything, safe storage >>> laws work to increase crime." > >>> The researchers conclude that "law enforcement programs are clearly more effective >>> than gun laws." They note that the "most effective programs combined both punitive >>> and supportive strategies to effectively reduce gun violence.. The assessment of >>> [gun violence prevention programs] provides clear guidance concerning which >>> approaches are most likely to result in enhanced public safety - an outcome that >>> should be attractive to policy makers regardless of their ideological persuasion." > >> You moved goal posts to crime only, and even then noted your hand-picked >> study showed SOME level of effectiveness... > > Aren't we talking about injuries occurring during violent crimes? Or are we talking > about the Supreme Court affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms? > >> This does not change the fact that evidence shows laws CAN reduce harm >> tied to guns. > > No, they can't > > Law enforcement can, and probation strategies most of all. > >>>> ... Then there is this: >>>> ----- >>>> Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the >>>> Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to >>>> study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the >>>> right to keep and bear arms >>>> ----- > >>>> But this is by someone who backed the RESTRICTION of research into how to reduce >>>> the impact of guns on death and harm. It is not an honest statement at all. > >>> Yours sure isn't, assuming you're referring to the Dickey amendment which, as all >>> sentient lifeforms know, only forbids the CDC from promoting or advocating for >>> more gun control laws. > >> This has been covered in the past: it was an active effort to stop research (and it >> worked). > > It was an effort to stop the CDC from promoting and advocating gun control. Period. > >>>> And the bias is extreme: > >>> Oh, the irony! > >>>> ----- >>>> In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, >>>> we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition >>>> of freedoms to submit their views. >>>> ----- > >>>> He is claiming that those who understand the rights in different ways >>>> are opposes to rights. This is a direct lie on his part. The he speaks >>>> of allowing the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence,... > >>> As does the Brady Bunch. > >> What? How about Gilligan's Island? > > How about Everytown for Gun Safety? > >>>> ... to have a say. The NRA! They are not a government organization >>>> nor do they have ANY authority on the meaning of the second >>>> amendment. They are not an impartial voice. > >>> A pity that you read no further. > >> A direct lie on your part. > > Then why did you fail to mention National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy > and National Coalition to Ban Handguns? > >>> You might have seen that they also included -- > >>> "Does the Second Amendment mean what it says?, by David J. Steinberg, >>> executive director, National Council for a Responsible Firearms policy. > >>> "National Coalition to ban handguns, statement on the Second Amendment, by Michael >>> K. Beard, executive director, and Samuel S. Fields, legal affairs coordinator, >>> National Coalition to Ban Handguns." > >>> Looks like Orrin Hatch was actually a lot more impartial than you! > >> As shown, he was not at all impartial. > > As shown, you're a liar. > >>>> On and on... it is clearly a very biased report, right from the start. > >>> Because you didn't like it. > >> My like or dislike of is not relevant. > > My point exactly. > >>>> Moving on from Hatch's very clearly biased comments we get to Dennis >>>> DeConcini, who pulls quotes in from out of context and tries to push >>>> the AZ constitution as applying to the US as a whole.... > >>> Look, if you're going to think with your ovaries instead of your brains, > >> Misogynistic insults serve only to show your bigotry. > >>> don't be surprised if you come off looking like a hysterical ninny. DeConcini made >>> no such assertion. Do you even know what "for example" means? > >> State law is not an example of federal and does not show the meaning of the Bill of >> Rights. > > He never claimed it does. He used the Arizona constitution to illustrate "[t]he right > to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society." > >>>> ... To his credit, though, he does speak of how things have changed over >>>> time: >>>> ----- >>>> All Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to >>>> the States came in the last century, when constitutional law was far >>>> different than it is today. >>>> ----- > >>> That's true. The fourteenth amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to the states. > >> And the meaning of the second amendment was far different, too. > > Nope. Hasn't changed a bit. > > -- 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 | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 14:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <bbgsao.5gc.19.4@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #689921 |
On 2018-06-10 2:54 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/10/18 2:33 PM, max headroom wrote: > ... >>> You find historical fact to be "shoddy and disputable". >> >> No, I found your sources shoddy and disputable. > > Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK. > > But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU > pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others). > Those include: > > * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free > ex-felons often are denied arms. > > * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace" > which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied > not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much > more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a > country. > > [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to > guns... completely disingenuous of you] > > * It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter > poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems > with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I > gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws > working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so > they know this claim of theirs is a lie. > > * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so. > > * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and > other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun > violence and other harm. > > * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend > themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That > is absurd. > > [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to > see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest > of you.] > > Those are simple facts... from the document you brought up and suggested > I look at. > > Maybe you should look at it. :) > > > >>> I think that sums it up well! >> >> As do I. >> >>>>> As far as the 1982 report, I have not read it all. I doubt you have >>>>> either: <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/rkba.htm>. Looking at it, I see >>>>> Orrin G. Hatch starts the document and speaks of how every free >>>>> person should be armed. Do you agree with this? Do you think >>>>> convicted felons, upon release from prison and now free, should be >>>>> armed?... >> >>>> Depends on the crime. Financial crimes, for instance, seldom involve >>>> violence. >> >>> Often many people are harmed by it... but that is a discussion for >>> another day. :) >> >>>>> ... Do you agree that at the start of the country: >>>>> ----- >>>>> that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had >>>>> reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable >>>>> of bearing arms... >>>>> ----- >>>>> The entire populace? Blacks? Non-land-owning men? Women? No. It was >>>>> a tiny percent of the population... the "elite" who could be trusted >>>>> to control others.... >> >>>> How do you jump to this conclusion? Is that all you read? >> >>> How did I jump to the conclusion that not all were welcome to have arms? >>> Sigh. >> >> Exactly. If you can't explain yourself, just say so. >> >>> And then you go off topic. You are just pushing off topic questions to >>> avoid responding. How amazing of you! >> >> Oh, the irony! You accuse me of your actions! >> >>>> "Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet 'Letters from the >>>> Federal Farmer >>>> to the Republican' worried that the people might be disarmed 'by >>>> modeling >>>> the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the people >>>> capable of bearing >>>> arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and those >>>> the young and >>>> ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, >>>> the former will >>>> answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be >>>> defenseless.' He >>>> proposed that 'the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and guard >>>> against a >>>> select militia,' adding that 'to preserve liberty, it is essential >>>> that the whole >>>> body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, >>>> especially when young, >>>> how to use them.' >> >>> Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? >> >> Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." >> >>>> "The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages >>>> is a clear >>>> indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to >>>> guarantee a State >>>> right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but >>>> rather to >>>> protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Lee, in >>>> particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights. He >>>> would hardly >>>> have meant the second amendment to apply only to the select militias >>>> he so feared >>>> and disliked. >> >>> Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? >> >> Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." >> >>>> "Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia >>>> convention, George >>>> Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British >>>> of having >>>> plotted 'to disarm the people - that was the best and most effective >>>> way to >>>> enslave them', while Patrick Henry observed that, 'The great object >>>> is that every >>>> man be armed' and 'everyone who is able may have a gun.... >> >>>> "A pamphlet written by Noah Webster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania >>>> toward >>>> ratification, observed. >> >>>> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as >>>> they are in >>>> almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot >>>> enforce unjust >>>> laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, >>>> and constitute >>>> a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any >>>> pretense, >>>> raised in the United States." >> >>> And that makes you think blacks and women had the right to arms? >> >> Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." >> >>>>> ... Is that really something you can support? But more importantly >>>>> do you trust a >>>>> document which gets something so fundamental to the start of our >>>>> country so >>>>> profoundly wrong? >> >>>> How can I trust a someone who gets something so fundamental to the >>>> start of our >>>> country so profoundly wrong? >> >>> So no answer from you. Quite telling. >> >> Then let me rephrase it-- I can't trust a someone who gets something >> so fundamental >> to the start of >> our country so profoundly wrong. >> >>> Simple fact: women and blacks, except in rare cases, were not allowed to >>> have guns. The idea that this right was for "everyone" is absurd. It was >>> HEAVILY limited. It most certainly was not the "entire populace". That >>> is a gross twisting of historic fact. >> >> Then you should have no trouble proving that. >> >>>>> And it says: >>>>> ----- >>>>> If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation >>>>> should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of >>>>> crime >>>>> rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a >>>>> century and a half of trying >>>>> ----- >> >>>>> But we have many examples of gun laws working. This document >>>>> references >>>>> some: https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ >> >>>>> So it is wrong there, too.... >> >>>> Cool. Means we don't need any more. >> >>> That is like saying we should have stopped improving cars and roads when >>> they death rates of vehicular accidents was reduced. We did not... we >>> KEPT and KEEP working on improvements. >> >> Oh, I see: you want to see improvements in the mechanisms. Well, me too. >> >>> Your claim that the improvement we have seen (gun deaths have gone >>> done... though they are back up over the last year or so) means we >>> should stop working to improve a clearly bad situation is not rational. >> >> I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. >> >>> The right to life matters! >> >>>> But I notice you like to cite a lot of medical sources and not law >>>> or criminology studies. >> >>> The claim was these laws do not work. Evidence contradicts that... at >>> least SOME of these laws do. That was my point. It is a correct point. >> >> I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. >> >>>> Try a change of pace: >> >>>> http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128708321321 >> >>>> According to this description, (found at >>>> https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis) >>>> >>>> - - >> >>>> [A] 2012 study from Arizona State University and the University of >>>> Cincinnati >>>> published in Crime and Delinquency, "The Effectiveness of Policies >>>> and Programs >>>> That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis," reviewed the >>>> effectiveness of dozens of policies designed to reduce gun violence >>>> in the United >>>> States. The researchers examined 29 rigorous studies between 1983 >>>> and 2005 that >>>> assessed the effectiveness of four major areas of gun violence >>>> interventions: >>>> information, training, and storage campaigns; gun buy-back programs; >>>> gun laws; and >>>> law enforcement campaigns. >> >>>> Key study findings include: >> >>>> a.. "The studies included in this analysis, on average, >>>> indicated a weak to >>>> moderate impact of these policies and programs on gun violence." >>>> b.. While all interventions reduced gun crime, gun buy-back >>>> programs and >>>> stricter gun laws were found to be only marginally effective. Law >>>> enforcement >>>> efforts, however, were found to significantly reduce gun-related >>>> crimes. >>>> c.. Of these legal interventions, probation strategies - >>>> increased contact with >>>> police, probation officers and social workers - proved most >>>> effective at >>>> curtailing gun violence; policing strategies and community programs >>>> were >>>> moderately effective, while "prosecutorial strategies" - harsher >>>> sentences and >>>> restricted bail opportunities - showed the least promise. >>>> d.. Mandatory firearms waiting periods and background checks >>>> were shown to have >>>> no statistical effects on gun crimes, while bans on specific weapons >>>> were >>>> moderately effective. >>>> e.. "The effect of safe-storage laws show they have been >>>> ineffective at >>>> reducing gun crime. The [studies] examined . found that, if >>>> anything, safe storage >>>> laws work to increase crime." >> >>>> The researchers conclude that "law enforcement programs are clearly >>>> more effective >>>> than gun laws." They note that the "most effective programs combined >>>> both punitive >>>> and supportive strategies to effectively reduce gun violence.. The >>>> assessment of >>>> [gun violence prevention programs] provides clear guidance >>>> concerning which >>>> approaches are most likely to result in enhanced public safety - an >>>> outcome that >>>> should be attractive to policy makers regardless of their >>>> ideological persuasion." >> >>> You moved goal posts to crime only, and even then noted your hand-picked >>> study showed SOME level of effectiveness... >> >> Aren't we talking about injuries occurring during violent crimes? Or >> are we talking >> about the Supreme Court affirming an individual right to keep and bear >> arms? >> >>> This does not change the fact that evidence shows laws CAN reduce harm >>> tied to guns. >> >> No, they can't >> >> Law enforcement can, and probation strategies most of all. >> >>>>> ... Then there is this: >>>>> ----- >>>>> Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the >>>>> Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to >>>>> study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the >>>>> right to keep and bear arms >>>>> ----- >> >>>>> But this is by someone who backed the RESTRICTION of research into >>>>> how to reduce >>>>> the impact of guns on death and harm. It is not an honest statement >>>>> at all. >> >>>> Yours sure isn't, assuming you're referring to the Dickey amendment >>>> which, as all >>>> sentient lifeforms know, only forbids the CDC from promoting or >>>> advocating for >>>> more gun control laws. >> >>> This has been covered in the past: it was an active effort to stop >>> research (and it >>> worked). >> >> It was an effort to stop the CDC from promoting and advocating gun >> control. Period. >> >>>>> And the bias is extreme: >> >>>> Oh, the irony! >> >>>>> ----- >>>>> In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete >>>>> picture, >>>>> we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition >>>>> of freedoms to submit their views. >>>>> ----- >> >>>>> He is claiming that those who understand the rights in different ways >>>>> are opposes to rights. This is a direct lie on his part. The he speaks >>>>> of allowing the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence,... >> >>>> As does the Brady Bunch. >> >>> What? How about Gilligan's Island? >> >> How about Everytown for Gun Safety? >> >>>>> ... to have a say. The NRA! They are not a government organization >>>>> nor do they have ANY authority on the meaning of the second >>>>> amendment. They are not an impartial voice. >> >>>> A pity that you read no further. >> >>> A direct lie on your part. >> >> Then why did you fail to mention National Council for a Responsible >> Firearms Policy >> and National Coalition to Ban Handguns? >> >>>> You might have seen that they also included -- >> >>>> "Does the Second Amendment mean what it says?, by David J. Steinberg, >>>> executive director, National Council for a Responsible Firearms policy. >> >>>> "National Coalition to ban handguns, statement on the Second >>>> Amendment, by Michael >>>> K. Beard, executive director, and Samuel S. Fields, legal affairs >>>> coordinator, >>>> National Coalition to Ban Handguns." >> >>>> Looks like Orrin Hatch was actually a lot more impartial than you! >> >>> As shown, he was not at all impartial. >> >> As shown, you're a liar. >> >>>>> On and on... it is clearly a very biased report, right from the start. >> >>>> Because you didn't like it. >> >>> My like or dislike of is not relevant. >> >> My point exactly. >> >>>>> Moving on from Hatch's very clearly biased comments we get to Dennis >>>>> DeConcini, who pulls quotes in from out of context and tries to push >>>>> the AZ constitution as applying to the US as a whole.... >> >>>> Look, if you're going to think with your ovaries instead of your >>>> brains, >> >>> Misogynistic insults serve only to show your bigotry. >> >>>> don't be surprised if you come off looking like a hysterical ninny. >>>> DeConcini made >>>> no such assertion. Do you even know what "for example" means? >> >>> State law is not an example of federal and does not show the meaning >>> of the Bill of >>> Rights. >> >> He never claimed it does. He used the Arizona constitution to >> illustrate "[t]he right >> to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society." >> >>>>> ... To his credit, though, he does speak of how things have changed >>>>> over >>>>> time: >>>>> ----- >>>>> All Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to >>>>> the States came in the last century, when constitutional law was far >>>>> different than it is today. >>>>> ----- >> >>>> That's true. The fourteenth amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to >>>> the states. >> >>> And the meaning of the second amendment was far different, too. >> >> Nope. Hasn't changed a bit. >> >> > > are you anything
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 15:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <MPG.35874517e0e6733f993d27@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #689922 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <bbgsao.5gc.19.4@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > > On 2018-06-10 2:54 PM, Snit wrote: > > On 6/10/18 2:33 PM, max headroom wrote: > > ... > >>> You find historical fact to be "shoddy and disputable". > >> > >> No, I found your sources shoddy and disputable. > > > > Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK. > > > > But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document YOU > > pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and others). > > Those include: > > > > * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free > > ex-felons often are denied arms. > > > > * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace" > > which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied > > not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and much > > more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our history as a > > country. > > > > [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to > > guns... completely disingenuous of you] > > > > * It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter > > poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the problems > > with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the laws, and I > > gave references to laws that worked and studies showing groups of laws > > working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to stop research, so > > they know this claim of theirs is a lie. > > > > * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so. > > > > * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and > > other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun > > violence and other harm. > > > > * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend > > themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. That > > is absurd. > > > > [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to > > see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly dishonest > > of you.] > > > > Those are simple facts... from the document you brought up and suggested > > I look at. > > > > Maybe you should look at it. :) > > > > > > > >>> I think that sums it up well! > >> > >> As do I. > >> > >>>>> As far as the 1982 report, I have not read it all. I doubt you have > >>>>> either: <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/rkba.htm>. Looking at it, I see > >>>>> Orrin G. Hatch starts the document and speaks of how every free > >>>>> person should be armed. Do you agree with this? Do you think > >>>>> convicted felons, upon release from prison and now free, should be > >>>>> armed?... > >> > >>>> Depends on the crime. Financial crimes, for instance, seldom involve > >>>> violence. > >> > >>> Often many people are harmed by it... but that is a discussion for > >>> another day. :) > >> > >>>>> ... Do you agree that at the start of the country: > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had > >>>>> reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable > >>>>> of bearing arms... > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> The entire populace? Blacks? Non-land-owning men? Women? No. It was > >>>>> a tiny percent of the population... the "elite" who could be trusted > >>>>> to control others.... > >> > >>>> How do you jump to this conclusion? Is that all you read? > >> > >>> How did I jump to the conclusion that not all were welcome to have arms? > >>> Sigh. > >> > >> Exactly. If you can't explain yourself, just say so. > >> > >>> And then you go off topic. You are just pushing off topic questions to > >>> avoid responding. How amazing of you! > >> > >> Oh, the irony! You accuse me of your actions! > >> > >>>> "Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet 'Letters from the > >>>> Federal Farmer > >>>> to the Republican' worried that the people might be disarmed 'by > >>>> modeling > >>>> the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the people > >>>> capable of bearing > >>>> arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and those > >>>> the young and > >>>> ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, > >>>> the former will > >>>> answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be > >>>> defenseless.' He > >>>> proposed that 'the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and guard > >>>> against a > >>>> select militia,' adding that 'to preserve liberty, it is essential > >>>> that the whole > >>>> body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, > >>>> especially when young, > >>>> how to use them.' > >> > >>> Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? > >> > >> Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." > >> > >>>> "The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages > >>>> is a clear > >>>> indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to > >>>> guarantee a State > >>>> right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but > >>>> rather to > >>>> protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Lee, in > >>>> particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights. He > >>>> would hardly > >>>> have meant the second amendment to apply only to the select militias > >>>> he so feared > >>>> and disliked. > >> > >>> Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have guns? > >> > >> Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." > >> > >>>> "Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia > >>>> convention, George > >>>> Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British > >>>> of having > >>>> plotted 'to disarm the people - that was the best and most effective > >>>> way to > >>>> enslave them', while Patrick Henry observed that, 'The great object > >>>> is that every > >>>> man be armed' and 'everyone who is able may have a gun.... > >> > >>>> "A pamphlet written by Noah Webster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania > >>>> toward > >>>> ratification, observed. > >> > >>>> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as > >>>> they are in > >>>> almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot > >>>> enforce unjust > >>>> laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, > >>>> and constitute > >>>> a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any > >>>> pretense, > >>>> raised in the United States." > >> > >>> And that makes you think blacks and women had the right to arms? > >> > >> Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." > >> > >>>>> ... Is that really something you can support? But more importantly > >>>>> do you trust a > >>>>> document which gets something so fundamental to the start of our > >>>>> country so > >>>>> profoundly wrong? > >> > >>>> How can I trust a someone who gets something so fundamental to the > >>>> start of our > >>>> country so profoundly wrong? > >> > >>> So no answer from you. Quite telling. > >> > >> Then let me rephrase it-- I can't trust a someone who gets something > >> so fundamental > >> to the start of > >> our country so profoundly wrong. > >> > >>> Simple fact: women and blacks, except in rare cases, were not allowed to > >>> have guns. The idea that this right was for "everyone" is absurd. It was > >>> HEAVILY limited. It most certainly was not the "entire populace". That > >>> is a gross twisting of historic fact. > >> > >> Then you should have no trouble proving that. > >> > >>>>> And it says: > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation > >>>>> should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of > >>>>> crime > >>>>> rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a > >>>>> century and a half of trying > >>>>> ----- > >> > >>>>> But we have many examples of gun laws working. This document > >>>>> references > >>>>> some: https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ > >> > >>>>> So it is wrong there, too.... > >> > >>>> Cool. Means we don't need any more. > >> > >>> That is like saying we should have stopped improving cars and roads when > >>> they death rates of vehicular accidents was reduced. We did not... we > >>> KEPT and KEEP working on improvements. > >> > >> Oh, I see: you want to see improvements in the mechanisms. Well, me too. > >> > >>> Your claim that the improvement we have seen (gun deaths have gone > >>> done... though they are back up over the last year or so) means we > >>> should stop working to improve a clearly bad situation is not rational. > >> > >> I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. > >> > >>> The right to life matters! > >> > >>>> But I notice you like to cite a lot of medical sources and not law > >>>> or criminology studies. > >> > >>> The claim was these laws do not work. Evidence contradicts that... at > >>> least SOME of these laws do. That was my point. It is a correct point. > >> > >> I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. > >> > >>>> Try a change of pace: > >> > >>>> http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128708321321 > >> > >>>> According to this description, (found at > >>>> https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis) > >>>> > >>>> - - > >> > >>>> [A] 2012 study from Arizona State University and the University of > >>>> Cincinnati > >>>> published in Crime and Delinquency, "The Effectiveness of Policies > >>>> and Programs > >>>> That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis," reviewed the > >>>> effectiveness of dozens of policies designed to reduce gun violence > >>>> in the United > >>>> States. The researchers examined 29 rigorous studies between 1983 > >>>> and 2005 that > >>>> assessed the effectiveness of four major areas of gun violence > >>>> interventions: > >>>> information, training, and storage campaigns; gun buy-back programs; > >>>> gun laws; and > >>>> law enforcement campaigns. > >> > >>>> Key study findings include: > >> > >>>> a.. "The studies included in this analysis, on average, > >>>> indicated a weak to > >>>> moderate impact of these policies and programs on gun violence." > >>>> b.. While all interventions reduced gun crime, gun buy-back > >>>> programs and > >>>> stricter gun laws were found to be only marginally effective. Law > >>>> enforcement > >>>> efforts, however, were found to significantly reduce gun-related > >>>> crimes. > >>>> c.. Of these legal interventions, probation strategies - > >>>> increased contact with > >>>> police, probation officers and social workers - proved most > >>>> effective at > >>>> curtailing gun violence; policing strategies and community programs > >>>> were > >>>> moderately effective, while "prosecutorial strategies" - harsher > >>>> sentences and > >>>> restricted bail opportunities - showed the least promise. > >>>> d.. Mandatory firearms waiting periods and background checks > >>>> were shown to have > >>>> no statistical effects on gun crimes, while bans on specific weapons > >>>> were > >>>> moderately effective. > >>>> e.. "The effect of safe-storage laws show they have been > >>>> ineffective at > >>>> reducing gun crime. The [studies] examined . found that, if > >>>> anything, safe storage > >>>> laws work to increase crime." > >> > >>>> The researchers conclude that "law enforcement programs are clearly > >>>> more effective > >>>> than gun laws." They note that the "most effective programs combined > >>>> both punitive > >>>> and supportive strategies to effectively reduce gun violence.. The > >>>> assessment of > >>>> [gun violence prevention programs] provides clear guidance > >>>> concerning which > >>>> approaches are most likely to result in enhanced public safety - an > >>>> outcome that > >>>> should be attractive to policy makers regardless of their > >>>> ideological persuasion." > >> > >>> You moved goal posts to crime only, and even then noted your hand-picked > >>> study showed SOME level of effectiveness... > >> > >> Aren't we talking about injuries occurring during violent crimes? Or > >> are we talking > >> about the Supreme Court affirming an individual right to keep and bear > >> arms? > >> > >>> This does not change the fact that evidence shows laws CAN reduce harm > >>> tied to guns. > >> > >> No, they can't > >> > >> Law enforcement can, and probation strategies most of all. > >> > >>>>> ... Then there is this: > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the > >>>>> Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to > >>>>> study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the > >>>>> right to keep and bear arms > >>>>> ----- > >> > >>>>> But this is by someone who backed the RESTRICTION of research into > >>>>> how to reduce > >>>>> the impact of guns on death and harm. It is not an honest statement > >>>>> at all. > >> > >>>> Yours sure isn't, assuming you're referring to the Dickey amendment > >>>> which, as all > >>>> sentient lifeforms know, only forbids the CDC from promoting or > >>>> advocating for > >>>> more gun control laws. > >> > >>> This has been covered in the past: it was an active effort to stop > >>> research (and it > >>> worked). > >> > >> It was an effort to stop the CDC from promoting and advocating gun > >> control. Period. > >> > >>>>> And the bias is extreme: > >> > >>>> Oh, the irony! > >> > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete > >>>>> picture, > >>>>> we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition > >>>>> of freedoms to submit their views. > >>>>> ----- > >> > >>>>> He is claiming that those who understand the rights in different ways > >>>>> are opposes to rights. This is a direct lie on his part. The he speaks > >>>>> of allowing the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence,... > >> > >>>> As does the Brady Bunch. > >> > >>> What? How about Gilligan's Island? > >> > >> How about Everytown for Gun Safety? > >> > >>>>> ... to have a say. The NRA! They are not a government organization > >>>>> nor do they have ANY authority on the meaning of the second > >>>>> amendment. They are not an impartial voice. > >> > >>>> A pity that you read no further. > >> > >>> A direct lie on your part. > >> > >> Then why did you fail to mention National Council for a Responsible > >> Firearms Policy > >> and National Coalition to Ban Handguns? > >> > >>>> You might have seen that they also included -- > >> > >>>> "Does the Second Amendment mean what it says?, by David J. Steinberg, > >>>> executive director, National Council for a Responsible Firearms policy. > >> > >>>> "National Coalition to ban handguns, statement on the Second > >>>> Amendment, by Michael > >>>> K. Beard, executive director, and Samuel S. Fields, legal affairs > >>>> coordinator, > >>>> National Coalition to Ban Handguns." > >> > >>>> Looks like Orrin Hatch was actually a lot more impartial than you! > >> > >>> As shown, he was not at all impartial. > >> > >> As shown, you're a liar. > >> > >>>>> On and on... it is clearly a very biased report, right from the start. > >> > >>>> Because you didn't like it. > >> > >>> My like or dislike of is not relevant. > >> > >> My point exactly. > >> > >>>>> Moving on from Hatch's very clearly biased comments we get to Dennis > >>>>> DeConcini, who pulls quotes in from out of context and tries to push > >>>>> the AZ constitution as applying to the US as a whole.... > >> > >>>> Look, if you're going to think with your ovaries instead of your > >>>> brains, > >> > >>> Misogynistic insults serve only to show your bigotry. > >> > >>>> don't be surprised if you come off looking like a hysterical ninny. > >>>> DeConcini made > >>>> no such assertion. Do you even know what "for example" means? > >> > >>> State law is not an example of federal and does not show the meaning > >>> of the Bill of > >>> Rights. > >> > >> He never claimed it does. He used the Arizona constitution to > >> illustrate "[t]he right > >> to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society." > >> > >>>>> ... To his credit, though, he does speak of how things have changed > >>>>> over > >>>>> time: > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> All Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to > >>>>> the States came in the last century, when constitutional law was far > >>>>> different than it is today. > >>>>> ----- > >> > >>>> That's true. The fourteenth amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to > >>>> the states. > >> > >>> And the meaning of the second amendment was far different, too. > >> > >> Nope. Hasn't changed a bit. > >> > >> > > > > > are you anything <burble> -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 17:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo5sk8Faqp2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689926 |
On 6/10/18 3:25 PM, Checkmate wrote: ... >> are you anything > > <burble> > Thank you! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 17:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo5shiFaqp2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689922 |
On 6/10/18 2:56 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-06-10 2:54 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/10/18 2:33 PM, max headroom wrote: >> ... >>>> You find historical fact to be "shoddy and disputable". >>> >>> No, I found your sources shoddy and disputable. >> >> Ah, so you just denied the evidence. OK. >> >> But speaking of history, notice how I talked about how the document >> YOU pointed to had SIGNIFICANT errors in its historical claims (and >> others). Those include: >> >> * Every free person is free to be armed. This is not true: free >> ex-felons often are denied arms. >> >> * The idea of having the right to arms included the "entire populace" >> which is just silly. Women and blacks, for example, were often denied >> not just arms but pretty much ANY property, the right to vote, and >> much more. It is an extremely ignorant thing to claim about our >> history as a country. >> >> [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to >> guns... completely disingenuous of you] >> >> * It denies ANY gun laws work but we know that is complete and utter >> poppycock. Heck, the US is one of the few countries to have the >> problems with guns that it does, and it is in part because of the >> laws, and I gave references to laws that worked and studies showing >> groups of laws working. Also, the NRA and their supporters work to >> stop research, so they know this claim of theirs is a lie. >> >> * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so. >> >> * He looked to the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence and >> other harm, as experts in the area of gun laws that would reduce gun >> violence and other harm. >> >> * He spoke of other groups who sought to help the public defend >> themselves from the NRA and their backers as being against rights. >> That is absurd. >> >> [You jumped in claiming I did not read far enough into the document to >> see he had done this even though I noted it! This was clearly >> dishonest of you.] >> >> Those are simple facts... from the document you brought up and >> suggested I look at. >> >> Maybe you should look at it. :) >> >> >> >>>> I think that sums it up well! >>> >>> As do I. >>> >>>>>> As far as the 1982 report, I have not read it all. I doubt you have >>>>>> either: <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/rkba.htm>. Looking at it, I see >>>>>> Orrin G. Hatch starts the document and speaks of how every free >>>>>> person should be armed. Do you agree with this? Do you think >>>>>> convicted felons, upon release from prison and now free, should be >>>>>> armed?... >>> >>>>> Depends on the crime. Financial crimes, for instance, seldom involve >>>>> violence. >>> >>>> Often many people are harmed by it... but that is a discussion for >>>> another day. :) >>> >>>>>> ... Do you agree that at the start of the country: >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had >>>>>> reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable >>>>>> of bearing arms... >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> The entire populace? Blacks? Non-land-owning men? Women? No. It was >>>>>> a tiny percent of the population... the "elite" who could be trusted >>>>>> to control others.... >>> >>>>> How do you jump to this conclusion? Is that all you read? >>> >>>> How did I jump to the conclusion that not all were welcome to have >>>> arms? >>>> Sigh. >>> >>> Exactly. If you can't explain yourself, just say so. >>> >>>> And then you go off topic. You are just pushing off topic questions to >>>> avoid responding. How amazing of you! >>> >>> Oh, the irony! You accuse me of your actions! >>> >>>>> "Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet 'Letters from the >>>>> Federal Farmer >>>>> to the Republican' worried that the people might be disarmed 'by >>>>> modeling >>>>> the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the people >>>>> capable of bearing >>>>> arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and those >>>>> the young and >>>>> ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, >>>>> the former will >>>>> answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be >>>>> defenseless.' He >>>>> proposed that 'the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and >>>>> guard against a >>>>> select militia,' adding that 'to preserve liberty, it is essential >>>>> that the whole >>>>> body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, >>>>> especially when young, >>>>> how to use them.' >>> >>>> Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have >>>> guns? >>> >>> Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." >>> >>>>> "The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages >>>>> is a clear >>>>> indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to >>>>> guarantee a State >>>>> right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but >>>>> rather to >>>>> protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. >>>>> Lee, in >>>>> particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights. He >>>>> would hardly >>>>> have meant the second amendment to apply only to the select >>>>> militias he so feared >>>>> and disliked. >>> >>>> Is this what makes you think women and blacks were allowed to have >>>> guns? >>> >>> Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." >>> >>>>> "Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia >>>>> convention, George >>>>> Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British >>>>> of having >>>>> plotted 'to disarm the people - that was the best and most >>>>> effective way to >>>>> enslave them', while Patrick Henry observed that, 'The great object >>>>> is that every >>>>> man be armed' and 'everyone who is able may have a gun.... >>> >>>>> "A pamphlet written by Noah Webster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania >>>>> toward >>>>> ratification, observed. >>> >>>>> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as >>>>> they are in >>>>> almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot >>>>> enforce unjust >>>>> laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, >>>>> and constitute >>>>> a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any >>>>> pretense, >>>>> raised in the United States." >>> >>>> And that makes you think blacks and women had the right to arms? >>> >>> Yup. "[T]he whole body of the people...." >>> >>>>>> ... Is that really something you can support? But more importantly >>>>>> do you trust a >>>>>> document which gets something so fundamental to the start of our >>>>>> country so >>>>>> profoundly wrong? >>> >>>>> How can I trust a someone who gets something so fundamental to the >>>>> start of our >>>>> country so profoundly wrong? >>> >>>> So no answer from you. Quite telling. >>> >>> Then let me rephrase it-- I can't trust a someone who gets something >>> so fundamental >>> to the start of >>> our country so profoundly wrong. >>> >>>> Simple fact: women and blacks, except in rare cases, were not >>>> allowed to >>>> have guns. The idea that this right was for "everyone" is absurd. It >>>> was >>>> HEAVILY limited. It most certainly was not the "entire populace". That >>>> is a gross twisting of historic fact. >>> >>> Then you should have no trouble proving that. >>> >>>>>> And it says: >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation >>>>>> should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of >>>>>> crime >>>>>> rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a >>>>>> century and a half of trying >>>>>> ----- >>> >>>>>> But we have many examples of gun laws working. This document >>>>>> references >>>>>> some: https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ >>> >>>>>> So it is wrong there, too.... >>> >>>>> Cool. Means we don't need any more. >>> >>>> That is like saying we should have stopped improving cars and roads >>>> when >>>> they death rates of vehicular accidents was reduced. We did not... we >>>> KEPT and KEEP working on improvements. >>> >>> Oh, I see: you want to see improvements in the mechanisms. Well, me too. >>> >>>> Your claim that the improvement we have seen (gun deaths have gone >>>> done... though they are back up over the last year or so) means we >>>> should stop working to improve a clearly bad situation is not rational. >>> >>> I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. >>> >>>> The right to life matters! >>> >>>>> But I notice you like to cite a lot of medical sources and not law >>>>> or criminology studies. >>> >>>> The claim was these laws do not work. Evidence contradicts that... at >>>> least SOME of these laws do. That was my point. It is a correct point. >>> >>> I made no such claim. Quit thinking with your ovaries. >>> >>>>> Try a change of pace: >>> >>>>> http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128708321321 >>> >>>>> According to this description, (found at >>>>> https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis) >>>>> >>>>> - - >>> >>>>> [A] 2012 study from Arizona State University and the University of >>>>> Cincinnati >>>>> published in Crime and Delinquency, "The Effectiveness of Policies >>>>> and Programs >>>>> That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis," reviewed >>>>> the >>>>> effectiveness of dozens of policies designed to reduce gun violence >>>>> in the United >>>>> States. The researchers examined 29 rigorous studies between 1983 >>>>> and 2005 that >>>>> assessed the effectiveness of four major areas of gun violence >>>>> interventions: >>>>> information, training, and storage campaigns; gun buy-back >>>>> programs; gun laws; and >>>>> law enforcement campaigns. >>> >>>>> Key study findings include: >>> >>>>> a.. "The studies included in this analysis, on average, >>>>> indicated a weak to >>>>> moderate impact of these policies and programs on gun violence." >>>>> b.. While all interventions reduced gun crime, gun buy-back >>>>> programs and >>>>> stricter gun laws were found to be only marginally effective. Law >>>>> enforcement >>>>> efforts, however, were found to significantly reduce gun-related >>>>> crimes. >>>>> c.. Of these legal interventions, probation strategies - >>>>> increased contact with >>>>> police, probation officers and social workers - proved most >>>>> effective at >>>>> curtailing gun violence; policing strategies and community programs >>>>> were >>>>> moderately effective, while "prosecutorial strategies" - harsher >>>>> sentences and >>>>> restricted bail opportunities - showed the least promise. >>>>> d.. Mandatory firearms waiting periods and background checks >>>>> were shown to have >>>>> no statistical effects on gun crimes, while bans on specific >>>>> weapons were >>>>> moderately effective. >>>>> e.. "The effect of safe-storage laws show they have been >>>>> ineffective at >>>>> reducing gun crime. The [studies] examined . found that, if >>>>> anything, safe storage >>>>> laws work to increase crime." >>> >>>>> The researchers conclude that "law enforcement programs are clearly >>>>> more effective >>>>> than gun laws." They note that the "most effective programs >>>>> combined both punitive >>>>> and supportive strategies to effectively reduce gun violence.. The >>>>> assessment of >>>>> [gun violence prevention programs] provides clear guidance >>>>> concerning which >>>>> approaches are most likely to result in enhanced public safety - an >>>>> outcome that >>>>> should be attractive to policy makers regardless of their >>>>> ideological persuasion." >>> >>>> You moved goal posts to crime only, and even then noted your >>>> hand-picked >>>> study showed SOME level of effectiveness... >>> >>> Aren't we talking about injuries occurring during violent crimes? Or >>> are we talking >>> about the Supreme Court affirming an individual right to keep and >>> bear arms? >>> >>>> This does not change the fact that evidence shows laws CAN reduce harm >>>> tied to guns. >>> >>> No, they can't >>> >>> Law enforcement can, and probation strategies most of all. >>> >>>>>> ... Then there is this: >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the >>>>>> Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to >>>>>> study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the >>>>>> right to keep and bear arms >>>>>> ----- >>> >>>>>> But this is by someone who backed the RESTRICTION of research into >>>>>> how to reduce >>>>>> the impact of guns on death and harm. It is not an honest >>>>>> statement at all. >>> >>>>> Yours sure isn't, assuming you're referring to the Dickey amendment >>>>> which, as all >>>>> sentient lifeforms know, only forbids the CDC from promoting or >>>>> advocating for >>>>> more gun control laws. >>> >>>> This has been covered in the past: it was an active effort to stop >>>> research (and it >>>> worked). >>> >>> It was an effort to stop the CDC from promoting and advocating gun >>> control. Period. >>> >>>>>> And the bias is extreme: >>> >>>>> Oh, the irony! >>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete >>>>>> picture, >>>>>> we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition >>>>>> of freedoms to submit their views. >>>>>> ----- >>> >>>>>> He is claiming that those who understand the rights in different ways >>>>>> are opposes to rights. This is a direct lie on his part. The he >>>>>> speaks >>>>>> of allowing the NRA, a group that benefits from gun violence,... >>> >>>>> As does the Brady Bunch. >>> >>>> What? How about Gilligan's Island? >>> >>> How about Everytown for Gun Safety? >>> >>>>>> ... to have a say. The NRA! They are not a government organization >>>>>> nor do they have ANY authority on the meaning of the second >>>>>> amendment. They are not an impartial voice. >>> >>>>> A pity that you read no further. >>> >>>> A direct lie on your part. >>> >>> Then why did you fail to mention National Council for a Responsible >>> Firearms Policy >>> and National Coalition to Ban Handguns? >>> >>>>> You might have seen that they also included -- >>> >>>>> "Does the Second Amendment mean what it says?, by David J. Steinberg, >>>>> executive director, National Council for a Responsible Firearms >>>>> policy. >>> >>>>> "National Coalition to ban handguns, statement on the Second >>>>> Amendment, by Michael >>>>> K. Beard, executive director, and Samuel S. Fields, legal affairs >>>>> coordinator, >>>>> National Coalition to Ban Handguns." >>> >>>>> Looks like Orrin Hatch was actually a lot more impartial than you! >>> >>>> As shown, he was not at all impartial. >>> >>> As shown, you're a liar. >>> >>>>>> On and on... it is clearly a very biased report, right from the >>>>>> start. >>> >>>>> Because you didn't like it. >>> >>>> My like or dislike of is not relevant. >>> >>> My point exactly. >>> >>>>>> Moving on from Hatch's very clearly biased comments we get to Dennis >>>>>> DeConcini, who pulls quotes in from out of context and tries to push >>>>>> the AZ constitution as applying to the US as a whole.... >>> >>>>> Look, if you're going to think with your ovaries instead of your >>>>> brains, >>> >>>> Misogynistic insults serve only to show your bigotry. >>> >>>>> don't be surprised if you come off looking like a hysterical ninny. >>>>> DeConcini made >>>>> no such assertion. Do you even know what "for example" means? >>> >>>> State law is not an example of federal and does not show the meaning >>>> of the Bill of >>>> Rights. >>> >>> He never claimed it does. He used the Arizona constitution to >>> illustrate "[t]he right >>> to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society." >>> >>>>>> ... To his credit, though, he does speak of how things have >>>>>> changed over >>>>>> time: >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> All Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to >>>>>> the States came in the last century, when constitutional law was far >>>>>> different than it is today. >>>>>> ----- >>> >>>>> That's true. The fourteenth amendment expanded the Bill of Rights >>>>> to the states. >>> >>>> And the meaning of the second amendment was far different, too. >>> >>> Nope. Hasn't changed a bit. >>> >>> >> >> > are you anything I am that which I am. -- 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 | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 13:42 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <B4WSC.305501$ll2.108789@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #689655 |
On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> >> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >> Committee? > > I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 14:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo2vblFognlU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689700 |
On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>> Committee? >> >> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. Fair enough. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:24 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <DsYSC.150719$Mj2.85624@fx22.iad> |
| In reply to | #689724 |
On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>> Committee? >>> >>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk > > Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean what you seem to think it means. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller was not a case of judicial activism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 15:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo3308Fp5nfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689770 |
On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>>> Committee? >>>> >>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >> >> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. > > Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. > To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean > what you seem to think it means. Justice Scalia's > opinion in Heller was not a case of judicial activism. Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as the meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second amendment by the Judicial branch and not the Legislative branch. -- 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 | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 17:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <MrZSC.215273$6C5.102528@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #689774 |
On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: > On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>>>> Committee? >>>>> >>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in 2008. >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>> >>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >> >> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean >> what you seem to think it means. Justice Scalia's >> opinion in Heller was not a case of judicial activism. > > Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the > controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as the > meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second amendment by > the Judicial branch Heller didn't do that. > and not the Legislative branch. The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Slaughtering concert goers. |
| Message-ID | <fo36ucFpoq2U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689786 |
On 6/9/18 4:31 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 6/9/2018 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 6/9/18 3:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 6/9/2018 3:32 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/9/18 12:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/2018 9:50 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you ignore the Supreme Court's analysis of the history >>>>>>> in the Miller decision and the Heller decision, and the 1982 report >>>>>>> of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to the Senate Judiciary >>>>>>> Committee? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have talked in some depth about the judicial activism shown in >>>>>> 2008. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk >>>> >>>> Humor to try to hide your lack of counter. >>> >>> Your lack of humor leads you to miss the counter. >>> To be more plain, "judicial activism" does not mean >>> what you seem to think it means. Justice Scalia's >>> opinion in Heller was not a case of judicial activism. >> >> Bottom line: you prefer to push humor and insults and not the >> controversial judicial activism of that 2008 decision. As far as the >> meaning, I am talking about the redefining of the second amendment by >> the Judicial branch > > Heller didn't do that. I have shown the evidence to the contrary. >> and not the Legislative branch. > > The legislative branch does not have power to redefine the Second > Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution. Fair enough.. the states do that. The judicial branch, though, sure as hell should not be writing laws. -- 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]
Page 23 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web