Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #331019
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: OT: Conservative sexism |
| Date | 2015-11-05 04:51 +0000 |
| Organization | O.W.L. |
| Message-ID | <fhgmvkf94.gjie@rooftop.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <D260024C.62C41%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <sfhejd9.3a@rooftop.invalid> <D260257D.62C8F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <srioe9.mbjh83@rooftop.invalid> <D2602B5B.62C95%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/4/15, 9:33 PM, in article srioe9.mbjh83@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> How is a background check going to detect a suicide in advance? Have >>>>>> these people committed suicide in the past? >>>>> >>>>> Their mental health records are tied to background checks. >>>> >>>> So? How is that going to detect a suicide in advance? >>> >>> Mental health check. Not perfect... but if there is a history of mental >>> health disorders that should be taken into consideration. As I showed you >>> with a link you snipped. >> >> Nothing is going to prevent said woman from jumping off a bridge or >> slitting her wrists. > > Irrelevant and off topic. > If a woman's chosen method of suicide is irrelevant and off-topic, then why are you linking it with a gun purchase? >> Why should access to a gun have any bearing? > > For the obvious reasons... people kill themselves with guns often and it is > quick and easy. > There are many quick and easy ways of committing suicide. No reason to burden society with shackles because of the potential behavior of a few goths and emos. >> If a woman's "mental health history" is not so terrible that it >> keeps her from walking the streets, then she should not be deprived >> of her Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. > > Again: off topic. And also you are assuming your view of the second > amendment is the correct one... with no evidence. Do you have ANY? > "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." >>>> And what if it's a woman? >>> >>> The sex of the person is not relevant in any way. >> >> Why did you snip the question of a woman's right to do as she pleases >> with her own body? Do you fear facing the hypocrisy you spout? > > I am trying - and failing - to keep you on topic. The sex of the person is > not relevant in any way. > Does a human have the right to do as it pleases with its own body?
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:17 -0800
Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:28 +0000
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:42 -0500
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 17:35 -0500
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 17:38 -0500
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0500
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 09:39 -0500
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0700
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 11:47 -0800
Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:47 +0000
Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:57 +0000
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 16:59 -0500
Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:06 +0000
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 20:10 -0800
Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:33 +0000
Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:51 +0000
Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 05:31 +0000
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:41 -0800
Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 18:51 +0000
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:18 -0700
Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 19:24 +0000
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:44 -0700
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 12:32 -0800
Re: OT: Conservative sexism JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-05 15:19 -0600
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 13:54 -0800
Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:38 -0700
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 15:48 -0800
Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:52 -0700
Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:51 -0700
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 22:28 -0700
Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-11-07 12:45 -0700
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:36 -0800
Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:53 -0800
csiph-web