Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #454756

Re: Slaughtering concert goers.

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/10/18 3:46 PM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:fo5l05F9hajU1@mid.individual.net,
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I denied YOUR evidence as disputable and shoddy.

You deny things which do not fit your bias. Whatever. I want to talk 
about the topic, not your weaknesses. Not your excuses.

>> 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.
> 
> Were they at the time the Bill of Rights were adopted?

Many were, sure. But others were not. Think

>> * 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.
> 
> Were those federal laws or state laws?
> 
>> [You responded by showing how some poor white males had access to
>> guns... completely disingenuous of you]
> 
> Ummm, those quotes did not limit the right to poor white males. How disingenuous of
> YOU.
> 
> "[T]he whole body of the people...."
> 
>> * It denies ANY gun laws work...
> 
> More of your bullshit. "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...."
> 
>> ... but we know that is complete and utter poppycock....
> 
> So are your estrogen-fueled fantasies.
> 
>> ... 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.
> 
> More fantasy. Dickey amendment = no CDC lobbying.
> 
>> * He claimed to back research even as he worked against doing so.
> 
> What did he do before 1982 to thwart research?
> 
>> * 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.
> 
> When and how?
> 
>> * 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.
> 
> What is absurd is your hysterical claim. Again, I quote the source--
> 
> "... What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and long-lost -
> proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual
> right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for
> protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary of our research and
> findings forms the first portion of this report.
>      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. The statements of two associations who replied are reproduced here
> following the report of the Subcommittee."
> 
>> [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.]
> 
> Forgive me. I didn't realize your reading comprehension is so poor.
> 
> 
My comments before your snipping:

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. :)


-- 
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>

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 15:46 -0700
  Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 16:51 -0700
    Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 19:44 -0700
      Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 19:50 -0700
        Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-10 21:14 -0700
          Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-10 21:21 -0700
            Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-11 06:39 -0700
              Re: Slaughtering concert goers. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 06:48 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2018-06-11 07:10 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 11:04 -0700
                Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 12:12 -0700
              Re: Slaughtering concert goers. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 11:03 -0700

csiph-web