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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #454795

Re: Slaughtering concert goers.

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In news:fo5rr8FamrhU1@mid.individual.net,
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed:

> 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.

You lost track of the topic long ago.

>>> 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. :)

Asked, and answered.

Your capitulation is acknowledged. 

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