Discussion:
Assault Weapons Not Covered By 2nd Amendment, Un-American 4th Circus Appeals Court Rules
Add Reply
Democracy G. Pye
2017-06-12 23:48:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 15:20:57 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:25:43 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
I resist doing so because it's ...
... not there.
Max! Whaz hapenin Dude?
Surely *you* know the Pledge of Allegiance, don't you? I can't
fucking believe that these morons don't even know it by heart.
Come on, Max... drop it on us! Gimme the fucking Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag (of the Untied States of America)!!!
I tell you, you're a bunch of fucking communists, I say! Why won't
you state the Pledge? What's so difficult about it?
Diversion noted and ignored. Answer JW's question.
What's the matter, asshole? Don't you even know the Pledge?

If you won't pledge your allegiance, then you don't get to own a gun
in MY country!

I pledge alegaince to the Flag
of the Untied States and America,
or to the Republic for which it stands,
by the twilights last gleaming,
one Nation under God, indvidual,
with liberty and just as far off.

OK, THERE! Now, cite Heller.

Democracy G. Pye (The 'G' stands for "Gung Ho!!!")
!Jones
2017-06-13 00:00:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:16:14 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
"Well regulated" is not a verb.
I didn't *say* it was. I thought "regulated" was an adjective and
"well" was an adverb... reminds me of diagramming sentences back in
Mrs. Hamburger's seventh grade class. But, then, I was reading by the
twilights's last gleaming, so I might have missed it. We'll have to
await the dawn's early light to know for sure.

Jones
!Jones
2017-06-16 01:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:05:27 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
They're legal (except in Kalifornia and Maryland). If you want
one, go for it.
https://throwflame.com/products/flamethrower/
Or if you're handy, build your own.
https://flamethrowerplans.com/
Yeah, I once worked out with one when we were burning some brush out
of the wire; it was a lot of fun. Only issue was that there were
mines and trip-flares in the wire as well as "popcorn" (discarded
ammunition)... so it was like: squirt and duck!

Oh, those fucking ducks!

Jones
Just Wondering
2017-06-16 08:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:05:27 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
They're legal (except in Kalifornia and Maryland). If you want
one, go for it.
https://throwflame.com/products/flamethrower/
Or if you're handy, build your own.
https://flamethrowerplans.com/
Yeah, I once worked out with one when we were burning some brush out
of the wire; it was a lot of fun. Only issue was that there were
mines and trip-flares in the wire as well as "popcorn" (discarded
ammunition)... so it was like: squirt and duck!
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
!Jones
2017-06-16 12:13:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:00:42 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
Everything you wrote is there; my reader deletes old comments from the
post, then replies. When you get a long-winded conversation, nobody
can follow it anyway. Besides, you and I are the only people who
care.

Jones
Just Wondering
2017-06-16 23:06:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
Everything you wrote is there;
No it's not. You have to look at prior posts to find out what the
conversation is about.
Post by !Jones
my reader deletes old comments from the post, then replies.
Probably because of a software setting that you need to change.

? When you get a long-winded conversation, nobodycan follow it anyway.
When the conversation gets too long-winded, that's soon enough to
judiciously clip part manually.
Post by !Jones
Besides, you and I are the only people who care.
You don't know that, and you do it to everyone.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-06-16 23:12:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 17:06:35 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
Everything you wrote is there;
No it's not. You have to look at prior posts to find out what the
conversation is about.
You have to remember than Jones has limited capacities. He knows his
limitations, and can only handle so much at a time. So cut the boy
some slack, mister! :)
Jack G
2017-06-16 23:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 17:06:35 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
Everything you wrote is there;
No it's not. You have to look at prior posts to find out what the
conversation is about.
You have to remember than Jones has limited capacities. He knows his
limitations, and can only handle so much at a time. So cut the boy
some slack, mister! :)
Snow flakes that are in denial have problems coping in real life.
Just Wondering
2017-06-17 00:48:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
Everything you wrote is there;
No it's not. You have to look at prior posts to find out what the
conversation is about.
You have to remember than Jones has limited capacities. He knows his
limitations, and can only handle so much at a time. So cut the boy
some slack, mister! :)
I weary of having to look back through 3, 4, 5 or more posts to piece
the conversation back together. I've tried to recreate conversations a
couple of times by piecing old posts into a threaded post, but it's more
trouble than its worth. iJones is the only poster who constantly pulls
this bullshit, and he blames it on his software.
!Jones
2017-06-17 01:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:48:33 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
I weary of having to look back through 3, 4, 5 or more posts to piece
the conversation back together. I've tried to recreate conversations a
couple of times by piecing old posts into a threaded post, but it's more
trouble than its worth. iJones is the only poster who constantly pulls
this bullshit, and he blames it on his software.
I took a lot of trouble rewriting my reader to do exactly that.
You're just going to have to get over it and move on, JW. It isn't
going to change.

Jones
Just Wondering
2017-06-17 02:08:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
I weary of having to look back through 3, 4, 5 or more posts to piece
the conversation back together. I've tried to recreate conversations a
couple of times by piecing old posts into a threaded post, but it's more
trouble than its worth. iJones is the only poster who constantly pulls
this bullshit, and he blames it on his software.
I took a lot of trouble rewriting my reader to do exactly that.
Translation: It's not really your reader that forces you into it. You
actually go out of your way to post like an ass, and then blame in on
your software.
!Jones
2017-06-17 03:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:08:51 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Translation: It's not really your reader that forces you into it. You
actually go out of your way to post like an ass, and then blame in on
your software.
Yeah! I wake up every morning and ask: "What can I do today to make
JW's life miserable?" I do that *just* to annoy you, JW! I'm glad to
see it's working.

Jones
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2017-06-17 14:12:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:08:51 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Translation: It's not really your reader that forces you into it. You
actually go out of your way to post like an ass, and then blame in on
your software.
Yeah! I wake up every morning and ask: "What can I do today to make
JW's life miserable?" I do that *just* to annoy you, JW! I'm glad to
see it's working.
Jones
Now, now, boys. Can't we all just get along?
Jack G
2017-06-17 14:52:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Colonel Edmund J. Burke
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:08:51 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Translation: It's not really your reader that forces you into it. You
actually go out of your way to post like an ass, and then blame in on
your software.
Yeah! I wake up every morning and ask: "What can I do today to make
JW's life miserable?" I do that *just* to annoy you, JW! I'm glad to
see it's working.
Jones
Now, now, boys. Can't we all just get along?
Maybe when some of them grow up.
Stagger Lee
2017-06-17 16:44:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Colonel Edmund J. Burke
Now, now, boys. Can't we all just get along?
A common theme in yer homo town..little Jackie.

LoLoLoL
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-06-17 12:57:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:48:33 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
Everything you wrote is there;
No it's not. You have to look at prior posts to find out what the
conversation is about.
You have to remember than Jones has limited capacities. He knows his
limitations, and can only handle so much at a time. So cut the boy
some slack, mister! :)
I weary of having to look back through 3, 4, 5 or more posts to piece
the conversation back together. I've tried to recreate conversations a
couple of times by piecing old posts into a threaded post, but it's more
trouble than its worth. iJones is the only poster who constantly pulls
this bullshit, and he blames it on his software.
Yeah, I liked that part. THat showed some imagination.
Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
2017-06-17 13:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 05:57:37 -0700, 'holocaust survivor'®™ Klaun
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:48:33 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
Everything you wrote is there;
No it's not. You have to look at prior posts to find out what the
conversation is about.
You have to remember than Jones has limited capacities. He knows his
limitations, and can only handle so much at a time. So cut the boy
some slack, mister! :)
I weary of having to look back through 3, 4, 5 or more posts to piece
the conversation back together. I've tried to recreate conversations a
couple of times by piecing old posts into a threaded post, but it's more
trouble than its worth. iJones is the only poster who constantly pulls
this bullshit, and he blames it on his software.
Yeah, I liked that part. THat showed some imagination.
How much imagination did it take to come up with an imaginary location
in Scottsdale, jewboi?
<snigger>

shabbat shalom a"h!

gut shabbos!

--
Illuc vadam nisi Dei gratia.

Tu [sic] es [sic] mulieri [sic] nequam [sic] (LOL)
Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson"/etc)
2017-06-17 13:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
How much imagination did it take to come up with an imaginary location
in Scottsdale,
How much shit do you eat every day, old pedo?

ADMIT it, Andrzej... you LOVE eating the brown stuff, just like Shitler did!

Yes folks, FOUR leading experts concluded: Shitler ate shit!

-------------------------------------------------------------

"He is an extreme masochist who derives sexual pleasure from
having a woman squat over him while she uriniates or defecates
on his face."


Quoted from

"A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler"

Walter C. Langer, Harvard

With the collaboration of
Prof. Henry A. Murr, Harvard Psychological Clinic
Dr. Ernst Kris, New School for Social Research
Dr. Bertram D. Lawin, New York Psychoanalytic Institute

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-04-06.html

Some believe that he [Hitler] is entirely immune from such impulses.
Some believe that he is a chronic masturbator. Some believe that
he derives his sexual pleasure [Page 138] through voyeurism. Many
believe that he is completely impotent. Others, and these are perhaps
in the majority, that he is homosexual. It is probably true that he is
impotent but he is certainiy not homosexual in the ordinary sense of
the term. His perversion has quite a different nature which few have
guessed. He is an extreme masochist who derives sexual pleasure from
having a woman squat over him while she uriniates or defecates on his
face. (Strasser, 919; see also 931, 932)*

[*Note: There may be some people who would question the reliability of
any information given by Otto Strasser because of his reputation. It
is perhaps because of his reputation that he came by this information
which had been so carefully guarded. He also supplied the interviewer
with a great deal of other information concerning Hitler which
checked very closely with that of other informants. As far as this
study is concerned we have no reason to question his sincerity.]

Although this perversion is not a common one, it is not unknown in
clinical work, particularly in its incipient stages. The four
collaborators on this study, in addition to Dr. De Saussure who
learned of the perversion from other sources, have all had experience
with cases of this type. All five agree that their information as
given is probably true in view of their clinical experience and their
knowledge of Hitler's character. In the following section further
evidence of its validition will be cited. At the present moment it is
sufficient to recognize the influence that this perversion must have
on the conscious mental life of Hitler.
The Peeler
2017-06-17 16:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 06:20:07 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Yeah, I liked that part. THat showed some imagination.
How much imagination did it take to come up with an imaginary location
in Scottsdale, jewboi?
<snigger>
What are you hallucinating now about again, you poor miserable housebound
psychotic?
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
shabbat shalom a"h!
gut shabbos!
<BG> Poor psychotic idiot!
--
Gray Guest about inferior Razovic: "You are a subhuman. You should not be
permitted to propagate your genes."
MID: <***@88.198.244.100>
Scout
2017-06-17 20:36:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
Everything you wrote is there;
No it's not. You have to look at prior posts to find out what the
conversation is about.
You have to remember than Jones has limited capacities. He knows his
limitations, and can only handle so much at a time. So cut the boy
some slack, mister! :)
I weary of having to look back through 3, 4, 5 or more posts to piece the
conversation back together. I've tried to recreate conversations a couple
of times by piecing old posts into a threaded post, but it's more trouble
than its worth. iJones is the only poster who constantly pulls this
bullshit, and he blames it on his software.
Well, it help allow him to 'reset' the conversation since people might not
look back to realize that the 'new' points he's bring up where disproved
just a few messages ago.

That and it helps hide where he keeps getting his ass handed him.
Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
2017-06-17 13:00:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:12:44 -0700, 'holocaust survivor'®™ Klaun
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 17:06:35 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Why do you keep clipping out so much of a thread that
no one can follow it?
Everything you wrote is there;
No it's not. You have to look at prior posts to find out what the
conversation is about.
You have to remember than Jones has limited capacities.
YOU have to remember that you have limited cojones (if any).
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
He knows his
limitations, and can only handle so much at a time. So cut the boy
some slack, mister! :)
Call that a jew smiley? THIS is a jew smiley, jewboi! :-----------)

shabbat shalom a"h!

gut shabbos!

--
Illuc vadam nisi Dei gratia.

Tu [sic] es [sic] mulieri [sic] nequam [sic] (LOL)
Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson"/etc)
2017-06-17 13:42:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
YOU have to remember that
YOU have to remember that raping two year old is illegal and immoral, Andrzej.
The Peeler
2017-06-17 16:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 06:00:09 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch
'Barry' Shein)", farted again:

<FLUSH psychotic BULLSHIT>

...nothing's left! LOL
--
Jack G. about dumb anal Razovic:
"WOW!!! This retarded squirrel made a comment."
!Jones
2017-06-16 23:40:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 17:06:35 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
No it's not. You have to look at prior posts to find out what the
conversation is about.
Tough tit. I won't try to tell you how to post; please reciprocate.

This conversation is over.

Jones
Chinook Lover
2017-06-16 14:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:05:27 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
They're legal (except in Kalifornia and Maryland). If you want
one, go for it.
https://throwflame.com/products/flamethrower/
Or if you're handy, build your own.
https://flamethrowerplans.com/
Yeah, I once worked out with one when we were burning some brush out
of the wire; it was a lot of fun. Only issue was that there were
mines and trip-flares in the wire as well as "popcorn" (discarded
ammunition)... so it was like: squirt and duck!
Oh, those fucking ducks!
Jones
so that's what U got against mallards fwiw I'd think farmers and
ranchers might have a use for one (chickens too) although it was common
fer me dad to use gasoline and a match
--
"they called him 'stumpy' and his kidneys were end-stage as well. we
gonna try fistula surgery again...a little higher up. Try saying
secondary brachial-cephalic ten time real fast. vascular folks say its
workin' yeah!!!!!"

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
!Jones
2017-06-18 02:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 22:26:24 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
#BeamMeUpScotty
NO... you have a right to "keep and bear arms"
What, exactly, is a *right*, please? What does it mean?

Challenge: don't copy and paste from Google; think about it and
develop it in your own words. I will do likewise. See you back here
in a couple of days or so... take your time.

Jones
dino
2017-06-18 03:37:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 22:26:24 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
#BeamMeUpScotty
NO... you have a right to "keep and bear arms"
What, exactly, is a *right*, please? What does it mean?
Challenge: don't copy and paste from Google; think about it and
develop it in your own words. I will do likewise. See you back here
in a couple of days or so... take your time.
Jones
You mean like in paragraphs with complete sentences? Oh, perish the thought!
!Jones
2017-06-18 14:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On 17 Jun 2017 20:37:34 -0700, in talk.politics.guns dino
Post by dino
You mean like in paragraphs with complete sentences? Oh, perish the thought!
Yeah, this thread does appear to be... uuuuh... "logically
challenged".

Perhaps I expect too much?

Jones
dino
2017-06-18 14:20:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On 17 Jun 2017 20:37:34 -0700, in talk.politics.guns dino
Post by dino
You mean like in paragraphs with complete sentences? Oh, perish the thought!
Yeah, this thread does appear to be... uuuuh... "logically
challenged".
Perhaps I expect too much?
Jones
Well, their president is incapable, why should they?
!Jones
2017-06-18 18:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On 18 Jun 2017 07:20:51 -0700, in talk.politics.guns dino
Post by dino
Well, their president is incapable, why should they?
Oh, gwad, Dino, that's a cheap shot!
dino
2017-06-18 19:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On 18 Jun 2017 07:20:51 -0700, in talk.politics.guns dino
Post by dino
Well, their president is incapable, why should they?
Oh, gwad, Dino, that's a cheap shot!
The 30% can't admit that they fucked up.
!Jones
2017-06-18 20:17:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 21:56:37 -0500, in talk.politics.guns !Jones
Post by !Jones
What, exactly, is a *right*, please? What does it mean?
Challenge: don't copy and paste from Google; think about it and
develop it in your own words. I will do likewise. See you back here
in a couple of days or so... take your time.
Let me get us started. To that end, I'll appeal to Google; however, I
do not present this as authoritative.

Adapted from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

"Human rights are moral principles or norms, which describe certain
standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal
rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly
understood as inalienable fundamental rights 'to which a person is
inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,' and
which are 'inherent in all human beings' regardless of their nation,
location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. They
are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being
universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for
everyone. They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law
and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of
others, and it is generally considered that they should not be taken
away except as a result of due process based on specific
circumstances; for example, human rights may include freedom from
unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution."

Do you accept that as a working definition? Why or why not?

I'll be happy to share my personal thoughts on this matter.

Jones
!Jones
2017-06-19 20:41:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in the
US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
humen right". What, then, do *you* mean when you toss the term:
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?

You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?

What, exactly, is a "human right"?

Jones
!Jones
2017-06-19 22:22:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:04 -0500, in talk.politics.guns !Jones
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in the
US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Jones
Do you see my problem? You're telling be what a right *isn't*...

It isn't a Kureg coffee machine...

They aren't hockey pucks...

You seem to be saying that rights end at political borders; I derive
this from: "if you aren't a citizen of or in the [country]", the
rights don't *apply*. (Emphasis added to "apply".)

OK, so the rights are created by the same political authority that
created the national border? If I an standing on the US side of the
Gio Grande and you are on the Mexico side, from *my* perspective, do
you still retain all of your human rights?

Suppose you are a citizen of Mexico; from my perspective, do you still
have the basic human rights protected by the constitution?

Now, back to the word "apply" that you used: is that the same as
"exist"?

Jones
RD Sandman
2017-06-20 19:18:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:04 -0500, in talk.politics.guns !Jones
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in
the US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Jones
Do you see my problem? You're telling be what a right *isn't*...
It isn't a Kureg coffee machine...
They aren't hockey pucks...
You seem to be saying that rights end at political borders; I derive
this from: "if you aren't a citizen of or in the [country]", the
rights don't *apply*. (Emphasis added to "apply".)
Show me Zamibia's version of the 2A.
Post by !Jones
OK, so the rights are created by the same political authority that
created the national border? If I an standing on the US side of the
Gio Grande and you are on the Mexico side, from *my* perspective, do
you still retain all of your human rights?
I don't use the term "human rights" so go bark at someone else.
Post by !Jones
Suppose you are a citizen of Mexico; from my perspective, do you still
have the basic human rights protected by the constitution?
Not ours.
Post by !Jones
Now, back to the word "apply" that you used: is that the same as
"exist"?
Do your own homework.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
!Jones
2017-06-20 19:46:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:18:55 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Post by RD Sandman
Show me Zamibia's version of the 2A.
Quote the Pledge of Allegiance.
RD Sandman
2017-06-20 19:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:18:55 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Post by RD Sandman
Show me Zamibia's version of the 2A.
Quote the Pledge of Allegiance.
Whose?
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
!Jones
2017-06-20 20:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:56:03 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Post by RD Sandman
Whose?
Any will do.
Just Wondering
2017-06-20 20:02:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
Post by RD Sandman
Show me Zamibia's version of the 2A.
Quote the Pledge of Allegiance.
Recite The Walrus and the Carpenter.
!Jones
2017-06-20 20:31:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:02:45 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Recite The Walrus and the Carpenter.
OK, but first quote the Pledge of Allegiance.
Just Wondering
2017-06-20 20:42:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
Post by RD Sandman
Show me Zamibia's version of the 2A
Quote the Pledge of Allegiance.
Recite The Walrus and the Carpenter.
OK, but first quote the Pledge of Allegiance.
OK, but first quote Jabberwocky.
!Jones
2017-06-20 22:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:42:29 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
OK, but first quote Jabberwocky.
Oh, JW... you see, sir, in usenet, you have what is known as the "more
information troll" wherein you simply bombard the OP with endless
demends and questions: "JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION!" This is a close
relative of the "citation troll".

The mere fact that someone asks you a question does not obligate you
to provide an answer... to me or anyone else.

Now, my question went to the definition of the term: "human right".
By asking that question, I stand ready to give you *my* definition
first... should you ask; however, you have not done so. After I do
that, I will only take further questions on a quid pro quo basis.

**************

Some nitwit (above) asked about the Constitution of Zambia which began
this nonsense. Well, here it is in its 118-page glory:
http://www.csprzambia.org/images/Constitution_of_Zambia__Amendment_2016-Act_No._2_0.pdf

It's generally a lot like every other constitution in the world;
however, I did notice something odd about it: do a term search on
"Bill of Rights" and tell me what you think. (Yeah, I noticed it,
too.)

Anyway, do have a great day.

Jones
!Jones
2017-06-20 22:23:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:42:29 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
OK, but first quote Jabberwocky.
OK

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Lewis Carroll, 1872

One of my favorites, it is! Although, it does piss off my spelling
checker!

Now, quote the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Jones
Chinook Lover
2017-06-20 22:43:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:42:29 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
OK, but first quote Jabberwocky.
OK
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Lewis Carroll, 1872
One of my favorites, it is! Although, it does piss off my spelling
checker!
Now, quote the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
Jones
they're dealing with adults with only wiki as a tool
--
"they called him 'stumpy' and his kidneys were end-stage as well.
coming Friday, we find out about the dialysis schedule. what fun getting
a coupla 105 howitzers jammed in me arm."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Just Wondering
2017-06-20 23:28:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:42:29 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
OK, but first quote Jabberwocky.
OK
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Lewis Carroll, 1872
One of my favorites, it is! Although, it does piss off my spelling
checker!
Now, quote the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
Fair enough. I assume you mean the USA pledge.

1892:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

1923:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, and to the
Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and
Justice for all.

1924:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty
and Justice for all.

1954 to date:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the Republic
for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and
Justice for all.
Chinook Lover
2017-06-20 23:48:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:42:29 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
OK, but first quote Jabberwocky.
OK
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Lewis Carroll, 1872
One of my favorites, it is! Although, it does piss off my spelling
checker!
Now, quote the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
Fair enough. I assume you mean the USA pledge.
one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, and to the
Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and
Justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty
and Justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the Republic
for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and
Justice for all.
are you a turtle?
--
"they called him 'stumpy' and his kidneys were end-stage as well.
coming Friday, we find out about the dialysis schedule. what fun getting
a coupla 105 howitzers jammed in me arm."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Just Wondering
2017-06-21 00:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:42:29 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
OK, but first quote Jabberwocky.
OK
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Lewis Carroll, 1872
One of my favorites, it is! Although, it does piss off my spelling
checker!
Now, quote the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
Fair enough. I assume you mean the USA pledge.
one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, and to the
Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and
Justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty
and Justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic
for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and
Justice for all.
!Jones
2017-06-21 00:34:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:28:08 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Fair enough. I assume you mean the USA pledge.
Uuuh, no, sorry about that; I meant tha Zambian pledge.
Scout
2017-06-20 21:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RD Sandman
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:04 -0500, in talk.politics.guns !Jones
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in
the US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Jones
Do you see my problem? You're telling be what a right *isn't*...
It isn't a Kureg coffee machine...
They aren't hockey pucks...
You seem to be saying that rights end at political borders; I derive
this from: "if you aren't a citizen of or in the [country]", the
rights don't *apply*. (Emphasis added to "apply".)
Show me Zamibia's version of the 2A.
Post by !Jones
OK, so the rights are created by the same political authority that
created the national border? If I an standing on the US side of the
Gio Grande and you are on the Mexico side, from *my* perspective, do
you still retain all of your human rights?
I don't use the term "human rights" so go bark at someone else.
Post by !Jones
Suppose you are a citizen of Mexico; from my perspective, do you still
have the basic human rights protected by the constitution?
Not ours.
Post by !Jones
Now, back to the word "apply" that you used: is that the same as
"exist"?
Do your own homework.
I think I see the fundamental error of Jones, since he doesn't know or
understand rights, then he can hardly be expected to discuss them
intelligently or understand what's being said when people talk about their
rights.

Given his inability to understand this foundational concept, naturally it
becomes impossible for him to intelligently discuss that which has been
built on that foundation.
!Jones
2017-06-20 22:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:59:34 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
I think I see the fundamental error of Jones, since he doesn't know or
understand rights, then he can hardly be expected to discuss them
intelligently or understand what's being said when people talk about their
rights.
Given his inability to understand this foundational concept, naturally it
becomes impossible for him to intelligently discuss that which has been
built on that foundation.
Why, hello Scout!

Wow! Complete sentences and all! (I'm OK with split infinitives; I
never did understand that silly issue!) I'm impressed!

I do understand what a "right" is, Scout; my question is: do you?

You suggest that I cannot discuss this idea intelligently... I believe
that I can. Would you mind proving that *you* can? The ante to this
discussion is to tell us *your* definition of a "right". It's OK to
ask me for mine; however, you have no investment yet. All you have
said is that *I* don't understand... I see no attempt on your part to
dispel my obvious ignorance of these matters; please enlighten me?

Thus, I call you!

Jones
Jack G
2017-06-20 22:06:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by RD Sandman
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:04 -0500, in talk.politics.guns !Jones
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in
the US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Jones
Do you see my problem? You're telling be what a right *isn't*...
It isn't a Kureg coffee machine...
They aren't hockey pucks...
You seem to be saying that rights end at political borders; I derive
this from: "if you aren't a citizen of or in the [country]", the
rights don't *apply*. (Emphasis added to "apply".)
Show me Zamibia's version of the 2A.
Post by !Jones
OK, so the rights are created by the same political authority that
created the national border? If I an standing on the US side of the
Gio Grande and you are on the Mexico side, from *my* perspective, do
you still retain all of your human rights?
I don't use the term "human rights" so go bark at someone else.
Post by !Jones
Suppose you are a citizen of Mexico; from my perspective, do you still
have the basic human rights protected by the constitution?
Not ours.
Post by !Jones
Now, back to the word "apply" that you used: is that the same as
"exist"?
Do your own homework.
I think I see the fundamental error of Jones, since he doesn't know or
understand rights, then he can hardly be expected to discuss them
intelligently or understand what's being said when people talk about their
rights.
Given his inability to understand this foundational concept, naturally it
becomes impossible for him to intelligently discuss that which has been
built on that foundation.
It took you long enough to find that out about him.
RD Sandman
2017-06-21 20:34:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by RD Sandman
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:04 -0500, in talk.politics.guns !Jones
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or
in the US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Jones
Do you see my problem? You're telling be what a right *isn't*...
It isn't a Kureg coffee machine...
They aren't hockey pucks...
You seem to be saying that rights end at political borders; I derive
this from: "if you aren't a citizen of or in the [country]", the
rights don't *apply*. (Emphasis added to "apply".)
Show me Zamibia's version of the 2A.
Post by !Jones
OK, so the rights are created by the same political authority that
created the national border? If I an standing on the US side of the
Gio Grande and you are on the Mexico side, from *my* perspective, do
you still retain all of your human rights?
I don't use the term "human rights" so go bark at someone else.
Post by !Jones
Suppose you are a citizen of Mexico; from my perspective, do you
still have the basic human rights protected by the constitution?
Not ours.
Post by !Jones
Now, back to the word "apply" that you used: is that the same as
"exist"?
Do your own homework.
I think I see the fundamental error of Jones, since he doesn't know or
understand rights, then he can hardly be expected to discuss them
intelligently or understand what's being said when people talk about
their rights.
Given his inability to understand this foundational concept, naturally
it becomes impossible for him to intelligently discuss that which has
been built on that foundation.
That guess is just as good as any I could come up with.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
!Jones
2017-06-22 04:44:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:34:35 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Post by RD Sandman
That guess is just as good as any I could come up with.
The question is: can you come up with the definition of "right"? You
throw it around all of the time; what does it mean?

Jones
Wiley E. Coyote
2017-06-20 11:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in the
US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Jones
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The
concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may
exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of
another—within this context, rights are an absolute.

A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few.
There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is
not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to
women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or
heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other
group.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not
a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions
of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another
person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not
have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some
money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If
you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you
must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not
through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another
individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it
through theft.

Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you,
even though in such isolation you have the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. In this solitude, you would be free to take the
actions needed to sustain your life: hunt for food, grow crops, build a
shelter and so on. If a hundred new settlers suddenly arrive in your area
and establish a community, you do not gain any additional rights by living
in such a society nor do you lose any; you simply retain the same rights
you possessed when you were alone.

A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men
and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It
is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your
life’s time, your money or property.

Animals do not have rights. Rights only apply to beings capable of thought,
capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of
protecting such rights. Thus, a fly or mosquito does not possess rights of
any kind, including the right to life. You may swat a fly or mosquito,
killing them both. You do not have the right to do the same to another
human being, except in self-defense. You may own and raise cows, keep them
in captivity and milk them for all they are worth. You do not have the
right to do the same to other men, although that is what statists
effectively do to you.

There is only one, fundamental right, the right to life—which is: the
sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyone’s permission, about
the actions in your life. All other rights are applications of this right
to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech.

The right to property is the right to take the action needed to create
and/or earn the material means needed for living. Once you have earned it,
then that particular property is yours—which means: you have the right to
control the use and disposal of that property. It may not be taken from you
or used by others without your permission.

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium
of communication you can afford. It is not the responsibility of others to
pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which
to speak. If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to
express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of
speech has not been violated and this is not censorship. Censorship is a
concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly
forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas.

Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted
it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of
another. With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have
seen an explosion of these "rights"—which, in fact, have gradually eroded
your actual right to your life, money and property.

Statists declare you have a "right" to housing, to a job, to health care,
to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a
minority and so on. These "rights" are all a claim, a lien, on your life
and the lives of others. These "rights" impose a form of involuntary
servitude on you and others. These "rights" force you to pay for someone’s
housing, their health care, their education, for training for a job—and, it
forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay
higher-than-necessary wages.

Under statism, "rights" are a means of enslavement: it places a mortgage on
your life—and statists are the mortgage holders, on the receiving end of
unearned payments forcibly extracted from your life and your earnings. You
do not have a right to your life, others do. Others do not have a right to
their lives, either, but you have a "right" to theirs. Such a concept of
"rights" forcibly hog-ties everyone to everyone else, making everyone a
slave to everyone else—except for those masters, statist politicians, who
pull the strings and crack the whips.

Actual rights—those actions to which you are entitled by your nature as
man—give you clear title to your life. A right is your declaration of
independence. A statist "right" is their declaration of your dependence on
others and other's dependence on you. Until these bogus "rights" are
repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to
slowly disappear.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
2017-06-20 16:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:28:26 -0000 (UTC), "jewboi Villy Koyotsky"
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in the
US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Jones
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The
concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may
exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of
another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
As a jew, the ONLY right you got is to get 'holocausted'®™, Villy!

--
Illuc vadam nisi Dei gratia.

Tu [sic] es [sic] mulieri [sic] nequam [sic] (LOL)
!Jones
2017-06-20 17:45:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The
concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may
exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of
another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
I fear that the thread, as I view it, has become a bit garbled... as
they will. Who wrote this, please?

But, OK... I like it! Actually, I think the term: "sovereign"
probably means that it applies to all human beings (I will assume that
it applies to women and people of Jewish faith, also; am I correct?)
In my own definition, I use the term: "intrinsic" [to the human
experience]. I think we are on the same page. So, does it depend on
one's citizenship or physical location?

Let's see: "you may exercise your [thing we call a 'right'] as long as
you do not violate the same rights of another..."

Thus, can it be removed? If so, how? My term is "indelible".

Finally, you say: "universal". While I accept this idea, I disagree
with what you suggest it means. *I* suggest that it means it applies
in [*almost*] every society. While some garden spots might not agree,
a human right is usually recognized.

Would you agree with that?

And... who is this, please?

Anybody else feel brave?

Jones
Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
2017-06-20 19:07:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The
concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may
exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of
another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
I fear that the thread, as I view it, has become a bit garbled... as
they will. Who wrote this, please?
But, OK... I like it! Actually, I think the term: "sovereign"
probably means that it applies to all human beings (I will assume that
it applies to women and people of Jewish faith, also; am I correct?)
No. ONLY to humans; NOT to subhumans such as jews.


--
Illuc vadam nisi Dei gratia.

Tu [sic] es [sic] mulieri [sic] nequam [sic] (LOL)
The Peeler
2017-06-20 19:34:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:07:58 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
Post by !Jones
But, OK... I like it! Actually, I think the term: "sovereign"
probably means that it applies to all human beings (I will assume that
it applies to women and people of Jewish faith, also; am I correct?)
No. ONLY to humans; NOT to subhumans such as jews.
Stop projecting your subhumanity onto all those that are superior to you,
you filthy serb peasant!
--
Anal Razovic about her life experience:
"all I can see is SHITE!"
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Wiley E. Coyote
2017-06-21 03:34:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)"
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same
rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
I fear that the thread, as I view it, has become a bit garbled... as
they will. Who wrote this, please?
But, OK... I like it! Actually, I think the term: "sovereign"
probably means that it applies to all human beings (I will assume that
it applies to women and people of Jewish faith, also; am I correct?)
No. ONLY to humans; NOT to subhumans such as Nazis.
--
Illuc vadam nisi Dei gratia.
Tu [sic] es [sic] mulieri [sic] nequam [sic] (LOL)
Fixed it for you.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
2017-06-21 13:21:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 03:34:07 -0000 (UTC), "jewboi Villy Koyotsky"
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
"Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)"
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same
rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
I fear that the thread, as I view it, has become a bit garbled... as
they will. Who wrote this, please?
But, OK... I like it! Actually, I think the term: "sovereign"
probably means that it applies to all human beings (I will assume that
it applies to women and people of Jewish faith, also; am I correct?)
No. ONLY to humans; NOT to subhumans such as jews.
Fixed it for you.
Refixed it for you, Villy.

--
Illuc vadam nisi Dei gratia.

Tu [sic] es [sic] mulieri [sic] nequam [sic] (LOL)
The Peeler
2017-06-21 15:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 06:21:06 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
No. ONLY to humans; NOT to subhumans such as Nazis.
Fixed it for you.
Refixed it for you, Villy.
Infantile idiot! <BG>
--
Jack G to dumb anal Razovic:
"The only thing that would fix you would be a Hot Lead Enema."
RD Sandman
2017-06-20 19:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated
footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate
the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an
absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
I fear that the thread, as I view it, has become a bit garbled... as
they will. Who wrote this, please?
But, OK... I like it! Actually, I think the term: "sovereign"
probably means that it applies to all human beings (I will assume that
it applies to women and people of Jewish faith, also; am I correct?)
In my own definition, I use the term: "intrinsic" [to the human
experience]. I think we are on the same page. So, does it depend on
one's citizenship or physical location?
Let's see: "you may exercise your [thing we call a 'right'] as long as
you do not violate the same rights of another..."
Thus, can it be removed? If so, how? My term is "indelible".
Finally, you say: "universal". While I accept this idea, I disagree
with what you suggest it means. *I* suggest that it means it applies
in [*almost*] every society. While some garden spots might not agree,
a human right is usually recognized.
Would you agree with that?
And... who is this, please?
Fix your reader or do your own tracing.
Post by !Jones
Anybody else feel brave?
Jones
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
!Jones
2017-06-20 19:38:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:20:25 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Post by RD Sandman
Fix your reader or do your own tracing.
You may kiss my ass when you get around to it.
RD Sandman
2017-06-20 19:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:20:25 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Post by RD Sandman
Fix your reader or do your own tracing.
You may kiss my ass when you get around to it.
You would have to move your nose.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Wiley E. Coyote
2017-06-21 03:33:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The
concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you
may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights
of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
I fear that the thread, as I view it, has become a bit garbled... as
they will. Who wrote this, please?
But, OK... I like it! Actually, I think the term: "sovereign"
probably means that it applies to all human beings (I will assume that
it applies to women and people of Jewish faith, also; am I correct?)
In my own definition, I use the term: "intrinsic" [to the human
experience]. I think we are on the same page. So, does it depend on
one's citizenship or physical location?
Let's see: "you may exercise your [thing we call a 'right'] as long as
you do not violate the same rights of another..."
Thus, can it be removed? If so, how? My term is "indelible".
Finally, you say: "universal". While I accept this idea, I disagree
with what you suggest it means. *I* suggest that it means it applies
in [*almost*] every society. While some garden spots might not agree,
a human right is usually recognized.
Would you agree with that?
And... who is this, please?
Anybody else feel brave?
Jones
It applies to every human being. That a government or any entity denies it
is vile and inhuman and is justification for them to be removed. And the
only suitable punishement for denial of basic human rights is death. By any
means necessary.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
The Peeler
2017-06-20 18:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:57:51 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The
concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may
exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of
another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
As a jew, the ONLY right you got is to get 'holocausted'®™, Villy!
As a psychopath and pervert, your ONLY right is to get shit and pissed upon
by everybody!
--
Anal Razovic about her life experience:
"all I can see is SHITE!"
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Wiley E. Coyote
2017-06-21 03:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)"
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:28:26 -0000 (UTC), "jewboi Villy Koyotsky"
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in the
US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Jones
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The
concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may
exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of
another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
As a jew, the ONLY right you got is to get 'holocausted'®™, Villy!
--
Illuc vadam nisi Dei gratia.
Tu [sic] es [sic] mulieri [sic] nequam [sic] (LOL)
Actually Nazis have a right to die face down in a ditch and have hogs
devour the remains. it's all your good for.
--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <***@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017
Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
2017-06-21 13:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 03:25:57 -0000 (UTC), "jewboi Villy Koyotsky"
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
"Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)"
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men,
As a jew, the ONLY right you got is to get 'holocausted'®™, Villy!
--
Illuc vadam nisi Dei gratia.
Tu [sic] es [sic] mulieri [sic] nequam [sic] (LOL)
Actually Nazis have a right to die face down in a ditch and have hogs
devour the remains. it's all your [sic] good for.
Actually, jewboi Villy, when you subpeople get 'holocausted'®™, hogs
wouldn't even TOUCH what's left of your subhuman carcasses.

--
Illuc vadam nisi Dei gratia.

Tu [sic] es [sic] mulieri [sic] nequam [sic] (LOL)
The Peeler
2017-06-21 15:13:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 06:23:54 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Actually Nazis have a right to die face down in a ditch and have hogs
devour the remains. it's all your [sic] good for.
Actually, jewboi Villy, when you subpeople get 'holocausted'®™, hogs
wouldn't even TOUCH what's left of your subhuman carcasses.
Jews are your masters now more than ever before, Razovic. If anyone, it's
THEM that could administer a holocaust to everyone who would like to hurt
them!
--
Gray Guest about inferior Razovic: "You are a subhuman. You should not be
permitted to propagate your genes."
MID: <***@88.198.244.100>
Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Mary Riendeau-Shein")
2017-06-23 09:23:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
a shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Post by Mary Riendeau-Shein (no relation to jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein)
As a jew,
As a sub-louse, you are not allowed to criticize lice, and certainly
not humans.

RD Sandman
2017-06-20 19:16:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in the
US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
humen right".
I assume that you mean a "human" right.
Post by !Jones
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Where did you come up with all this bullshit? Hard to tell when you trim
everything and blame it on your reader.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
!Jones
2017-06-20 19:45:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:16:41 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Post by RD Sandman
I assume that you mean a "human" right.
Where did you come up with all this bullshit? Hard to tell when you trim
everything and blame it on your reader.
Of course I mean a "human" right. Are you stupid?

If you would write in complete sentences with punctuation, combine
those into paragraphs in which you develop a complete thought, you
wouldn't have a problem following it. OTOH, if you want to snipe
around the edges with snide little "stream of consciousness"
interjections, then please feel free to continue doing so.

Jones
RD Sandman
2017-06-20 19:55:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:16:41 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Post by RD Sandman
I assume that you mean a "human" right.
Where did you come up with all this bullshit? Hard to tell when you
trim everything and blame it on your reader.
Of course I mean a "human" right. Are you stupid?
I didn't spell it wrong....you did.
Post by !Jones
If you would write in complete sentences with punctuation, combine
those into paragraphs in which you develop a complete thought, you
wouldn't have a problem following it.
Or, if someone who responds to it has trimmed it out of all
recognition.....

OTOH, if you want to snipe
Post by !Jones
around the edges with snide little "stream of consciousness"
interjections, then please feel free to continue doing so.
Jones
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Scout
2017-06-20 21:56:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RD Sandman
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in the
US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say "a
humen right".
I assume that you mean a "human" right.
Post by !Jones
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Where did you come up with all this bullshit? Hard to tell when you trim
everything and blame it on your reader.
To bad, he can't reprogram his reader to reinsert the content when he gets
lost because it snipped out all the context.
!Jones
2017-06-20 23:01:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:56:33 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
To bad, he can't reprogram his reader to reinsert the content when he gets
lost because it snipped out all the context.
T_ b_d, h_ c_n't r_pr_gr_m h_s r__d_r t_ r__ns_rt th_ c_nt_nt wh_n h_ g_ts
l_st b_c__s_ _t sn_pp_d __t _ll th_ c_nt_xt.
How about quote you backwards?
Post by Scout
.txetnoc eht lla deppins ti esuaceb tsol steg eh nehw thetnoc eht tresnier
ot redaer sih margorper t'nac eh dab oT
Oh, yeah... I hate to mention it; however, it's "too bad"... probably
just a "fat finger" thing; it does happen tooo all of us vez a vez.

senoJ
RD Sandman
2017-06-21 20:33:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by RD Sandman
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:11:56 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
Bullshit. No right is absolute and if you aren't a citizen of or in
the US, its laws and protections don't apply to you either.
That would be inconsistent with what most people mean when they say
"a humen right".
I assume that you mean a "human" right.
Post by !Jones
"right" around so casually? Have you ever defined it?
You bring up the idea of a "law"; is a "right", then, a law?
What, exactly, is a "human right"?
Where did you come up with all this bullshit? Hard to tell when you
trim everything and blame it on your reader.
To bad, he can't reprogram his reader to reinsert the content when he
gets lost because it snipped out all the context.
That would be too much to ask. He should have left it alone in the first
place or gotten a different reader.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
!Jones
2017-06-22 22:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:36:15 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
I personally have a number of issues with [ www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/],
but it's all moot in the face of the fact that Jones does not, and will not ever understand what a right
is. Even though the fundamental idea is contained within the opening sentences of the document he cited.
Meanwhile, I note Jones lame attempt to change the subject.
No, Scout... I am not changing the subject; in fact, I'm locked onto
this subject like a heat-seeking missile. I believe it to be the
primary point of vulnerability for the gunners in the whole debate.

Let's look at what you just wrote: you said that you "have a number of
issues with [the UN document]"

OK, let's begin with your first one, shall we? ... then we'll take
them one at a time from there. (Am I changing the subject, Scout?)

I agree with your statement that "the fundamental idea is contained
within the opening sentences of the document...", and, yes, I read it,
and, yes, I understand what it says; however, my question is: do you
understand it? What does it say, Scout? You suggest that I don't
understand it; I doubt that you do.

So... does your first point of disagreement start there? Let's see
*exactly* where we disagree?

Scout:
"[ack (ack)] <spew> WERE YOU ALWAYS THIS STUPID OR WERE YOU DROPPED ON
YOUR HEAD? </spew> [insert off-topic ad hominem here] IT'S IN THE
CONSTITUTION!!! <spew> You fucking gun grabber! </spew>"

OK, you didn't really say that; however, that's about normal for you.
What would really blow my mind would be if you actually said something
intelligent and followed up on what you just wrote.

I won't hold my breath.

Jones
!Jones
2017-06-22 22:38:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:29:40 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
#BeamMeUpScotty
Up until you try to exercise them, yes.
We are all born with our rights, the U.S. constitution does NOT create
any RIGHTS. The U.S. government only protects the rights that we have
and have transferred to the U.S. Government via the constitution.
All we can say is that our government does a slightly better job of
protecting our rights that we have and gave to the government as powers.
Sadly our own Government is failing to protect our Rights in some part
thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts failures.
Outstanding!!!

Look at this, guys! The Beamer actually wrote an intelligent posting!
(That's about the first one I've seen in a week from the whole effing
group!)

May I clarify one point?... and I will tell you what *I* think should
you ask... you say: "We are all born with our rights"; my question is:
are these "rights" because we're born with them OR are we born with
them because they're rights? Restated: do they exist before we were
born? Basically, I'm asking if you believe a human right to be
universal.

I do have a strong position on that matter that I will be happy to
share. *I* tend to assert that we're born with them because they're
rights.

Jones
!Jones
2017-06-22 23:19:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:41:35 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
True, but just because you don't openly practice that right doesn't mean you
don't have it.
Given the number of people around the planet that continue to exercise their
rights and are subject to persecution, prosecution and even execution for
doing so, I would have to consider that to be a human perspective.
You can't take rights away, the most you can do is drive their exercise
underground and into secrecy. But people will continue to exercise their
rights, until the point they have had enough with having to do it in secret
and rise up to throw off the oppression.
Now, that's intriguing! You said: "You can't take rights away..."

In the US, we practice capital punishment; therefore, if one commits
an egregious crime, then the person may be executed. Thus, we do not
view "life" as a fundamental "human right"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to start sobbing over the murderer's
rights... I'm just stating the obvious. Life isn't a basic human
right in the US by your definition.

Jones
Loading...