I specifically remember Fauci admitting that he initially, and intentionally, mislead the public about the need for a mask in order to keep demand down until the medical professionals got their share first. intentionally, mislead the public about the need for a mask in order to

I have 3 letters:
A.M.A;.
Against Medical Advice

In Fauci's case, at that point in time, that is exactly what it meant.


* SLMR 2.1a * In his hand a moving picture of the crumbling land
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

If it offends you, don't read it. That is freedom. Freedom isn't telling others they also cannot read it.

But Freedom is wrong to the left Elites. To them, you should't be free to choose, because they can run your life so much better than you can.

Most of the leftest I know, who would be of the type who would throw a fit about a chinese person in a Dr. Seuss book, are the type who cannot run
their own lives. Some still live with (a) parent(s) and others live off
the government mostly.

Then again, they probably are not considered "Elites" by anyone but maybe themselves.

People on the Left wonder why the Right has become so radical. Maybe they need to look at their own STUPID behaviors and ask themselves if they are not what is driving the right farther right.

But the Right isn't moving further to the right. The Left is moving further t
the left and what used to be the
moderate Left is now on the "right" - yet those people haven't changed their political views.

Case in point: If JFK was alive today, he'd be a Republican - going by his political views.

For the most part, I tend to agree with this. Maybe my statement should be "... the radical right has become more vocal" instead.


* SLMR 2.1a * Did you expect mere proof to sway my opinion?
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Mike Powell wrote to RON LAUZON <=-

Most of the leftest I know, who would be of the type who would throw a
fit about a chinese person in a Dr. Seuss book, are the type who cannot run their own lives. Some still live with (a) parent(s) and others
live off the government mostly.

Then again, they probably are not considered "Elites" by anyone but
maybe themselves.

Ya, I should probably use the term "Elite" instead of Elite for that reason.

I've seen the same thing. Every one of these people who is trying to tell
me that they know better than me have completely messed up lives.

Case in point: If JFK was alive today, he'd be a Republican - going by his political views.

For the most part, I tend to agree with this. Maybe my statement
should be "... the radical right has become more vocal" instead.

That depends on what the "radical right" means. If we take "radical right"
to mean "white supremacists", then you are still incorrect. Only the Lefties label "white supremacists" as "right wing". If you look at their views, they are squarely in the Left. Especially when you remember that Democrats
were the party of the slave owners.


... Without my ignorance, your knowledge would be meaningless
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)

On 08 Mar 2021, Ron Lauzon said the following...

That depends on what the "radical right" means. If we take "radical right" to mean "white supremacists", then you are still incorrect. Only the Lefties label "white supremacists" as "right wing". If you look at their views, they are squarely in the Left. Especially when you
remember that Democrats were the party of the slave owners.

Uh, no. The "Unite the Right" rally in 2017 was swarming with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Confederate flags are a staple of the far right
as well.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

That depends on what the "radical right" means. If we take "radical right" to mean "white supremacists", then you are still incorrect. Only the Lefties label "white supremacists" as "right wing". If you look at their views, they are squarely in the Left. Especially when you remember that Democrats
were the party of the slave owners.

For a lot of groups, that is true. The "alt-right," for example. Their
views, while often including some sort of race or nationality supremacy,
are mostly about social programs and other non-traditionally right-wing
things. The only real difference between the "alt-right" and the
"leftists" is that the "alt-right" folks only want social programs to
beneifit their "kind" and not whatever groups they are excluding.


* SLMR 2.1a * Software Independent: Won't work with ANY software.
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 08 Mar 2021, Mike Powell said the following...

For a lot of groups, that is true. The "alt-right," for example. Their views, while often including some sort of race or nationality supremacy, are mostly about social programs and other non-traditionally right-wing things. The only real difference between the "alt-right" and the "leftists" is that the "alt-right" folks only want social programs to beneifit their "kind" and not whatever groups they are excluding.

Oh, really? Take Steve Bannon, for instance. He was has described Breitbart News, of which he was the executive chair, as the "platform for the
alt-right." Why would Trump choose a "leftist" as his chief strategist and put him on the National Security Council?

I'm not sure what social programs you think that the alt-right supports, but I'd love to hear some examples.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff Thiele wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

Uh, no. The "Unite the Right" rally in 2017 was swarming with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Confederate flags are a staple of the far right as well.

And if you actually listen to their political position, they are not on the "right" but squarely on the left. Big government controlling what people can or cannot do.


... Today is cancelled due to lack of interest!
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/02/12 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Communication Connection 1:120/457 (1:120/457)

On 10 Mar 2021, Ron Lauzon said the following...

Uh, no. The "Unite the Right" rally in 2017 was swarming with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Confederate flags are a staple of the far right as well.

And if you actually listen to their political position, they are not on the "right" but squarely on the left. Big government controlling what people can or cannot do.

Uh, no. That is not what defines the left vs. the right. Conservatives have
no problem telling people what they can and cannot do. Drug laws are in
general supported more by conservatives than liberals. Conservatives were extremely opposed to same-sex marriage and, previously, interracial marriage. Conservatives remain opposed to LGBTQ persons having the same rights as everyone else. Slavery and segregation were both conservative platforms (don't confuse conservative/liberal with Republican/Democrat, since the parties have changed their ideologies over time). The "Blue Laws," some of which still remain, were conservative in nature. In Texas, for example, alcohol cannot be sold on Sundays before noon because that's when God-fearing conservatives decided that people should be in church instead of buying alcohol. Conservatives opposed women's equality and their right to vote. They still oppose a woman's right to control her own body. Conservatives also get really upset when they decide that you're not properly respecting the flag or the anthem. They oppose a publisher being able to decide which books they want to continue publishing and a toy company being able to decide what they call
their toy. Conservatives tend to think that children should be forced to pray to their God in school.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Uh, no. The "Unite the Right" rally in 2017 was swarming with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Confederate flags are a staple of the far right as well.

And if you actually listen to their political position, they are not on the "right" but squarely on the left. Big government controlling what people can or cannot do.

Thank you, I could not have worded that better.

The only real difference between them and the left is that they do not (usually) practice inclusion. Almost everything else comes out of the
leftie playbook.


* SLMR 2.1a * Halloween is *not* Christmas, even though 31 oct = 25 dec
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Uh, no. That is not what defines the left vs. the right. Conservatives have no problem telling people what they can and cannot do. Drug laws are in general supported more by conservatives than liberals. Conservatives were extremely opposed to same-sex marriage and, previously, interracial marriage.

Not exactly. True conservatives usually only want to tell people what
they can and cannot do when it comes to the border of violating the rights
of others. Like, you cannot loot and destroy the property of others
because, well, it belongs to someone else. You cannot kill people.

Same-sex marriage, you have a point there.

I believe racism exists on both sides of the political spectrum so not sure that interracial marriage is much of an issue (at least not here where I
live).

Conservatives remain opposed to LGBTQ persons having the same rights as everyone else.

No, we are opposed to them having MORE rights than others. Otherwise, to
me they are just other people who should enjoy whatever rights the
Constitution and laws of our land afford them.

They oppose a publisher being able to decide which books they want to continue publishing and a toy company being able to decide what they call their toy.

That'd be liberals, or have you not been paying attention lately?
Conservatives oppose publishers and companies being forced to stop
publishing and selling things by the demands of the few. We support your
right not to buy from those publishers and companies just as we support everyone's right to make up our minds about what product they want to spend money on.

If no one buys it, they quit making it. Free market economy.


* SLMR 2.1a * Pentium Myth #1: The computer only does what you tell it.
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 12 Mar 2021, Mike Powell said the following...

I believe racism exists on both sides of the political spectrum so not sure that interracial marriage is much of an issue (at least not here where I live).

Not nearly as much as it used to be; we've made pretty good progess on that one. It does rear its ugly head occasionally, though.

No, we are opposed to them having MORE rights than others. Otherwise, to me they are just other people who should enjoy whatever rights the Constitution and laws of our land afford them.

Such as the right to not be discriminated against because someone's religion says that gays are bad?

They oppose a publisher being able to decide which books they want to continue publishing and a toy company being able to decide what they cal their toy.

That'd be liberals, or have you not been paying attention lately? Conservatives oppose publishers and companies being forced to stop publishing and selling things by the demands of the few. We support your right not to buy from those publishers and companies just as we support everyone's right to make up our minds about what product they want to spend money on.

I have been paying attention. These were decisions made by the publisher and the toy company. No one forced them to do anything. And you don't have to buy from those companies if you don't like their decisions.

Not exactly. True conservatives usually only want to tell people what they can and cannot do when it comes to the border of violating the
rights of others. Like, you cannot loot and destroy the property of others because, well, it belongs to someone else. You cannot kill
people.

Ah, "No True Scotsman" again. Perhaps that is how you feel, but it is not
true of conservatives in general. Bedfellows and all that.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Mike Powell wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

And if you actually listen to their political position, they are not on the "right" but squarely on the left. Big government controlling what people

can

or cannot do.

Thank you, I could not have worded that better.

The only real difference between them and the left is that they do not (usually) practice inclusion. Almost everything else comes out of the leftie playbook.

But Lefties don't practice inclusion either. They call it "inclusion", but it's actually exclusion.

"1984" is a good description of the new-speak that the Lefties want to impose.


... You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/02/12 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Communication Connection 1:120/457 (1:120/457)

On 13 Mar 2021, Ron Lauzon said the following...

But Lefties don't practice inclusion either. They call it "inclusion", but it's actually exclusion.

Intolerance is intolerable. Exclusionists are excluded. If you feel left out, ask yourself why that might be.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff Thiele wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

But Lefties don't practice inclusion either. They call it "inclusion", but it's actually exclusion.

Intolerance is intolerable. Exclusionists are excluded. If you feel
left out, ask yourself why that might be.

Standard Leftie double-speak and projection.


... I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you!
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/02/12 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Communication Connection 1:120/457 (1:120/457)

On 16 Mar 2021, Ron Lauzon said the following...

Intolerance is intolerable. Exclusionists are excluded. If you feel left out, ask yourself why that might be.

Standard Leftie double-speak and projection.

Nah, that was a standard Leftie dismissal of right-wing BS.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff Thiele wrote to Mike Powell <=-

On 12 Mar 2021, Mike Powell said the following...

I believe racism exists on both sides of the political spectrum so not sure that interracial marriage is much of an issue (at least not here where I live).

Not nearly as much as it used to be; we've made pretty good progess on that one. It does rear its ugly head occasionally, though.

It's not as much here either. I was raised not to support it, but when I
was old enough I made up my own mind. :-)

No, we are opposed to them having MORE rights than others. Otherwise, to me they are just other people who should enjoy whatever rights the Constitution and laws of our land afford them.

Such as the right to not be discriminated against because someone's religion says that gays are bad?

My religion says that the activity is a sin, but 'they' are no more guilty
of sin than me or anyone else. All sin is bad. Our church does NOT
discrimnate against 'them' - 'they' are welcome as individuals into our services as is any other individual.

A business owner has the right to deny service to anyone. Why is it
suddenly 'discrimination' if a Christian owned bakery chooses not to
make a 'gay' wedding cake? If I, as a staight white male, walked in
and was demanding about something and complaining about it, they'd just
ask me to take my business elsewhere. But suddenly if I say I'm 'gay'
then "oh sorry sir! Let me ignore MY beliefs for YOU because YOUR
beliefs are more important than mine!"

Not exactly. True conservatives usually only want to tell people what they can and cannot do when it comes to the border of violating the
rights of others. Like, you cannot loot and destroy the property of others because, well, it belongs to someone else. You cannot kill
people.

Ah, "No True Scotsman" again. Perhaps that is how you feel, but it is
not true of conservatives in general. Bedfellows and all that.

All the more reason to NOT identify with a group and just stand up and
be your own individual (man, woman, whatever 3 through 8 are...)






... The moon isn't waxing; it's dusting and vacumming.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

On 19 Mar 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

Such as the right to not be discriminated against because someone's religion says that gays are bad?

My religion says that the activity is a sin, but 'they' are no more
guilty of sin than me or anyone else. All sin is bad. Our church does
NOT discrimnate against 'them' - 'they' are welcome as individuals into our services as is any other individual.

A business owner has the right to deny service to anyone. Why is it suddenly 'discrimination' if a Christian owned bakery chooses not to
make a 'gay' wedding cake? If I, as a staight white male, walked in
and was demanding about something and complaining about it, they'd just ask me to take my business elsewhere. But suddenly if I say I'm 'gay'
then "oh sorry sir! Let me ignore MY beliefs for YOU because YOUR
beliefs are more important than mine!"

Businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone for *almost* any reason. They are still not allowed to discriminate.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" has been around at least as long as I've
been alive, but why is it suddenly wrong for businesses to refuse to serve people who don't wear masks?

Not exactly. True conservatives usually only want to tell people wha they can and cannot do when it comes to the border of violating the rights of others. Like, you cannot loot and destroy the property of others because, well, it belongs to someone else. You cannot kill people.

Ah, "No True Scotsman" again. Perhaps that is how you feel, but it is not true of conservatives in general. Bedfellows and all that.

All the more reason to NOT identify with a group and just stand up and
be your own individual (man, woman, whatever 3 through 8 are...)

Who do you vote with, though? With whom are your political aspirations entwined?

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff Thiele wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

Businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone for *almost*
any reason. They are still not allowed to discriminate.

But where do you draw the line?

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" has been around at least as long as
I've been alive, but why is it suddenly wrong for businesses to refuse
to serve people who don't wear masks?

LOL - it's not, and I've said so all along. If a business owner requires
a mask and I want to shop there, I will wear a mask. If they don't require
it, I don't wear it.

Getting up in arms about it doesn't help the situation. Just choose to go somewhere else if it offends you (not you, Jeff, but the universal you). Most places have curbside now anyway.

Not exactly. True conservatives usually only want to tell people wha they can and cannot do when it comes to the border of violating the rights of others. Like, you cannot loot and destroy the property of others because, well, it belongs to someone else. You cannot kill people.

Ah, "No True Scotsman" again. Perhaps that is how you feel, but it is not true of conservatives in general. Bedfellows and all that.

All the more reason to NOT identify with a group and just stand up and
be your own individual (man, woman, whatever 3 through 8 are...)

Who do you vote with, though? With whom are your political aspirations entwined?

Personally, I vote the individual. I explore the platform they claim to
stand on and I contact them personally whenever possible and make my
decision that way. I'm not a 'party line' voter at all, but at the same
time I have two specific things I vote "first" - that's pro-life and
anti-gun control. I don't care what flag they fly as long as they
represent my beliefs on these things.




... Only XT users know that January 1, 1980 was a Tuesday.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

On 22 Mar 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

Businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone for *almost* any reason. They are still not allowed to discriminate.

But where do you draw the line?

Do you speak Spanish? Spanish has two words for "to be:" "ser" and "estar."

"Ser" is used to describe more permanent characteristics, like where you're from, what your occupation is, what your religion is, what material something is made of.

"Estar" is used to describe more transitory characteristics, like how you're feeling right now, where you are right now, what you're doing right now.

It's not perfect, but that's the guide I use. If you're refusing service for something a person would use "ser" to describe, that's discrimination. If
not, it's not.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" has been around at least as long as I've been alive, but why is it suddenly wrong for businesses to refus to serve people who don't wear masks?

LOL - it's not, and I've said so all along. If a business owner requires
a mask and I want to shop there, I will wear a mask. If they don't
require it, I don't wear it.

Getting up in arms about it doesn't help the situation. Just choose to go somewhere else if it offends you (not you, Jeff, but the universal you). Most places have curbside now anyway.

And yet, there are plenty of people getting upset about being refused service for not wearing a mask. And they're disproportionately conservatives.

Who do you vote with, though? With whom are your political aspiration entwined?

Personally, I vote the individual. I explore the platform they claim to stand on and I contact them personally whenever possible and make my decision that way. I'm not a 'party line' voter at all, but at the same time I have two specific things I vote "first" - that's pro-life and anti-gun control. I don't care what flag they fly as long as they represent my beliefs on these things.

So none of their other beliefs matter as long as those two requirements are met?

For what it's worth, I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. I think women should have the right to control their own bodies, but that we as a society should take steps to limit how often it's used. Education, making family planning resources (read: birth control/condoms) available, and stop pretending that abstinence is the only way (because clearly it's not -- people are getting pregnant somehow and I doubt it's immaculate conception).

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff Thiele wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

On 22 Mar 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

Businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone for *almost* any reason. They are still not allowed to discriminate.

But where do you draw the line?

Do you speak Spanish? Spanish has two words for "to be:" "ser" and "estar."

"Ser" is used to describe more permanent characteristics, like where you're from, what your occupation is, what your religion is, what
material something is made of.

"Estar" is used to describe more transitory characteristics, like how you're feeling right now, where you are right now, what you're doing
right now.

It's not perfect, but that's the guide I use. If you're refusing
service for something a person would use "ser" to describe, that's discrimination. If not, it's not.

Interesting, and no I don't speak Spanish.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" has been around at least as long as I've been alive, but why is it suddenly wrong for businesses to refus to serve people who don't wear masks?

LOL - it's not, and I've said so all along. If a business owner requires
a mask and I want to shop there, I will wear a mask. If they don't
require it, I don't wear it.

Getting up in arms about it doesn't help the situation. Just choose to go somewhere else if it offends you (not you, Jeff, but the universal you). Most places have curbside now anyway.

And yet, there are plenty of people getting upset about being refused service for not wearing a mask. And they're disproportionately conservatives.

And they are not helping 'the cause' any in the process. LOL

Who do you vote with, though? With whom are your political aspiration entwined?

Personally, I vote the individual. I explore the platform they claim to stand on and I contact them personally whenever possible and make my decision that way. I'm not a 'party line' voter at all, but at the same time I have two specific things I vote "first" - that's pro-life and anti-gun control. I don't care what flag they fly as long as they represent my beliefs on these things.

So none of their other beliefs matter as long as those two requirements are met?

Those are the two most important to me. I don't care if they are Christian or Catholic or agnostic or whatever, as long as they don't support abortion, because I'm the one voting for them to REPRESENT me, and I want someone
that represents the way I feel. And I won't say NONE oof their other
beliefs matter, but pro-life is the MOST important to me.

For what it's worth, I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. I think women should have the right to control their own bodies, but that we as a society should take steps to limit how often it's used. Education,
making family planning resources (read: birth control/condoms)
available, and stop pretending that abstinence is the only way (because clearly it's not -- people are getting pregnant somehow and I doubt
it's immaculate conception).

Birth control - if it prevents conception, there's no baby to murder. I'm
for that!

I do believe for a variety of reasons that abstinence is the BEST way...



... Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes!
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to JEFF THIELE <=-

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" has been around at least as long as
I've been alive, but why is it suddenly wrong for businesses to refuse
to serve people who don't wear masks?

LOL - it's not, and I've said so all along. If a business owner
requires a mask and I want to shop there, I will wear a mask. If they don't require it, I don't wear it.

And this is why the Elites need the Mask Mandate. If one shop requires a
mask and their competitor doesn't, that competitor will get more business
(just because masks are a pain). The market will force businesses to NOT require a mask.

I find the whole mask mandate thing to be funny. Because if this was just about health, then a simple suggestion and asking people would have been
much more effective in getting people to wear them. But the moment that
the gov't mandated it, usually with no evidence at all, people are going to resist.

Personally, I vote the individual. I explore the platform they claim to stand on and I contact them personally whenever possible and make my decision that way. I'm not a 'party line' voter at all, but at the same time I have two specific things I vote "first" - that's pro-life and anti-gun control. I don't care what flag they fly as long as they represent my beliefs on these things.

Which is how it should be.

That's one good thing that has come out of this whole scam-demic and
election fraud: people are paying **much** more attention to politics and
who they elect to represent them.


... How do women get minks? Same way minks get minks
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)

On 23 Mar 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

And yet, there are plenty of people getting upset about being refused service for not wearing a mask. And they're disproportionately conservatives.

And they are not helping 'the cause' any in the process. LOL

What exactly is 'the cause' in this case?

Birth control - if it prevents conception, there's no baby to murder. I'm for that!

I do believe for a variety of reasons that abstinence is the BEST way...

It definitely would be, if it worked. But humans didn't spend the last
million years or so taking over the planet and expanding our population to
over 7 billion by being abstinent. Hormones are powerful things...

(Another off-topic thing: How much of our behavior, feelings, and even
thoughts do you think are controlled by chemicals such as hormones? People
can have hormone or chemical imbalances that definitely affect their
behavior, mood, and even thought process, and "correcting" that imbalance can actually change their behavior, mood, and thought processes. So these
chemicals seem to affect our minds, our very essence. Do you think that our minds could be separated from these chemicals? Would we still be ourselves? Obviously this has religious implications, since our bodies are both an
earthly vessel and a container for all of these chemicals, but that's not specifically what I'm questioning.)

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Ron Lauzon wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

And this is why the Elites need the Mask Mandate. If one shop requires
a mask and their competitor doesn't, that competitor will get more business (just because masks are a pain). The market will force businesses to NOT require a mask.

Good point.

I find the whole mask mandate thing to be funny. Because if this was
just about health, then a simple suggestion and asking people would
have been much more effective in getting people to wear them. But the moment that the gov't mandated it, usually with no evidence at all,
people are going to resist.

I work in public school, and tthe CDC recently changed guidelines so
that students no longer have to be SIX feet apart, but now only THREE
feet apart. I don't think the virus has changed at all, and this just
shows how much we do NOT know...

I'm not a doctor, but I don't know hat the masks are effective anyway.
I think they make people FEEL better - cause they are activly doing
something.

Personally, I vote the individual. I explore the platform they claim to stand on and I contact them personally whenever possible and make my decision that way. I'm not a 'party line' voter at all, but at the same time I have two specific things I vote "first" - that's pro-life and anti-gun control. I don't care what flag they fly as long as they represent my beliefs on these things.

Which is how it should be.

That's one good thing that has come out of this whole scam-demic and election fraud: people are paying **much** more attention to politics
and who they elect to represent them.

One can hope! I've always been one to encourage finding out how the
candidates stand and voting your conscious, even if it is NO in agreement
with me.




... Sorcerer parking only. Violators will be toad.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to RON LAUZON <=-

I work in public school, and tthe CDC recently changed guidelines so
that students no longer have to be SIX feet apart, but now only THREE
feet apart. I don't think the virus has changed at all, and this just shows how much we do NOT know...

We know much more than they say we do. None of the CDC recommendations
for schools have any scientific basis.

I'm not a doctor, but I don't know hat the masks are effective anyway.
I think they make people FEEL better - cause they are activly doing something.

Masks aren't effective for the most part. If they work to keep the virus out, they restrict air flow to the point where long term use will cause the
wearer health problems. If they don't restrict air flow, they won't keep
the virus out.

About the only scientific reason for wearing a mask is: If a person is
showing symptoms and sneezing and coughing, then the mask helps to not
spread it if they need to go to the store to get food.

Other than that, it just makes the sheeple feel good.

One can hope! I've always been one to encourage finding out how the candidates stand and voting your conscious, even if it is NO in
agreement with me.

I think we will see more of that in the next election cycle.


... I'm as confused as a baby at a topless bar!
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)

Hello Jimmy,

On 22 Mar 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

Businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone for

*almost*

any reason. They are still not allowed to discriminate.

But where do you draw the line?

Do you speak Spanish? Spanish has two words for "to be:" "ser" and
"estar."

"Ser" is used to describe more permanent characteristics, like where
you're from, what your occupation is, what your religion is, what
material something is made of.

"Estar" is used to describe more transitory characteristics, like how
you're feeling right now, where you are right now, what you're doing
right now.

It's not perfect, but that's the guide I use. If you're refusing
service for something a person would use "ser" to describe, that's
discrimination. If not, it's not.

Interesting, and no I don't speak Spanish.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" has been around at least as

long as

I've been alive, but why is it suddenly wrong for businesses to

refus

to serve people who don't wear masks?

LOL - it's not, and I've said so all along. If a business owner

requires

a mask and I want to shop there, I will wear a mask. If they don't
require it, I don't wear it.

Getting up in arms about it doesn't help the situation. Just choose

to go

somewhere else if it offends you (not you, Jeff, but the universal

you).

Most places have curbside now anyway.

And yet, there are plenty of people getting upset about being refused
service for not wearing a mask. And they're disproportionately
conservatives.

And they are not helping 'the cause' any in the process. LOL

Who do you vote with, though? With whom are your political
aspiration entwined?

Personally, I vote the individual. I explore the platform they claim to
stand on and I contact them personally whenever possible and make my
decision that way. I'm not a 'party line' voter at all, but at the same
time I have two specific things I vote "first" - that's pro-life and
anti-gun control. I don't care what flag they fly as long as they
represent my beliefs on these things.

Pro-life and anti-gun control.
How is allowing nutcases such as the nutcase who murdered eight Asian
women in Atlanta GA to own guns to do them in?
How is allowing nutcases such as the nutcase who murdered ten people,
including a police offier, in Boulder CO to own guns to do them in?
That sounds more like anti-life and pro-murder with guns to me.

So none of their other beliefs matter as long as those two
requirements are met?

Those are the two most important to me. I don't care if they are Christian or
Catholic or agnostic or whatever, as long as they don't support abortion, because I'm the one voting for them to REPRESENT me, and I want someone that represents the way I feel. And I won't say NONE oof their other beliefs matter, but pro-life is the MOST important to me.

What about the death penalty? Allowing the state to murder people
in my name? That does not sound very pro-life to me. Even if lethal
injection rather than guns is the method used. State-sponsored
murder is still murder. Murder in my name, and in everybody who
is actually pro-life. Or rather pro whole life. From the moment
of conception to the moment of natural death.

But hey. You do not believe in anything like that.
Otherwise you would stand up and loudly disagree.

For what it's worth, I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. I think women
should have the right to control their own bodies, but that we as a
society should take steps to limit how often it's used. Education,
making family planning resources (read: birth control/condoms)
available, and stop pretending that abstinence is the only way (because
clearly it's not -- people are getting pregnant somehow and I doubt
it's immaculate conception).

Birth control - if it prevents conception, there's no baby to murder. I'm for that!

Yeah. Let's eliminate mankind by offing ourselves by abstaining
from sex.

--Lee

--
My body, my choice! / Her body, her choice!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 03-24-21 08:48, Ron Lauzon <=-
spoke to Jimmy Anderson about Re: Attacking Dr Seuss <=-

About the only scientific reason for wearing a mask is: If a person
is showing symptoms and sneezing and coughing, then the mask helps to
not spread it if they need to go to the store to get food.

The mask helps to not spread the infection even if they are not showing symptoms. Since one does not always know that they are infected and contagious, that is why mask wearing is recomended.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked in Silver Spring, Maryland. 01:05:18, 25 Mar 2021
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Lee Lofaso wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

Personally, I vote the individual. I explore the platform they claim to
stand on and I contact them personally whenever possible and make my
decision that way. I'm not a 'party line' voter at all, but at the same
time I have two specific things I vote "first" - that's pro-life and
anti-gun control. I don't care what flag they fly as long as they
represent my beliefs on these things.

Pro-life and anti-gun control.
How is allowing nutcases such as the nutcase who murdered eight Asian women in Atlanta GA to own guns to do them in?
How is allowing nutcases such as the nutcase who murdered ten people, including a police offier, in Boulder CO to own guns to do them in?
That sounds more like anti-life and pro-murder with guns to me.

How deep do you want to go with this?

The constitution of the United States says that it is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT
to protect yourself. I am not saying 'nutcases' should be able to murder
people at all. Actually murder is already illegal! Taking guns away from
LAW ABIDING people won't stop murder in the least.

I am anti-gun control because it does not work and because it is a violation
of my rights. There are already SO many laws on the books that make it where you have to pay a fee to the government to be able to exercise your right
to own a gun for self defense, hunting, sport shooting, collecting - whatever. There are MILLIONS of new gun owners since COVID started. How many of those have started murdering people?

If someone gets drunk and drives and has an accident, do you close all the bars? No. Why not?

If someone intentionally runs over someone with their car, do you start screaming to outlaw cars? Or make it where you have to prove you're not
a 'nutcase' to be able to purchase a car? No? Why not?

The problem has never been with the 'gun' - the problem is with the person
with murderous intent.

I do NOT defend the actions of these 'nutcases' in any way, shape or form!
But that does NOT give someone the right to say that *I* shouldn't be
allowed to have a gun for self defense, or hunting, or just going in
the back yard and SAFELY operating my guns for fun.

Please, give me a chance to defend my position! I welcome it!

As for pro-life - but sounds like pro-murder? Not in the least! If someone comes at me or my family with the intent to kill me, I have the right to
defend myself. It is not murder if I use deadly force to stop an attack, so that does not contridict my pro-life stance. When I say pro-life, I mean
ALL life, but specifically when it comes to a political view I'm speaking
of being AGAINST abortion.

What about the death penalty? Allowing the state to murder people
in my name? That does not sound very pro-life to me. Even if lethal injection rather than guns is the method used. State-sponsored
murder is still murder. Murder in my name, and in everybody who
is actually pro-life. Or rather pro whole life. From the moment
of conception to the moment of natural death.

I do not believe that capitol punishment is 'murder.' There is a distinct difference between killing someone and murder. Murder comes from the heart
and is full of hate. Killing happens during wartime, in acts of self defense, accidently in the event of an auto accident, etc.

But hey. You do not believe in anything like that.
Otherwise you would stand up and loudly disagree.

I belive in the punishment fitting the crime. If an adult makes a
conscious decision to murder someone, then they are agreeing to whatever
the punishment is that the state allows.

Yeah. Let's eliminate mankind by offing ourselves by abstaining
from sex.

I'm not talking about everyone abstaining and the population die off.
I'm talking about UNWANTED pregnacy. Isn't that why aborion is performed
almost in every case? Cause the baby is not wanted?




... Okay, who swiped the Crime Watch sign?!?!
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

On 25 Mar 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

The constitution of the United States says that it is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT
to protect yourself. I am not saying 'nutcases' should be able to murder people at all. Actually murder is already illegal! Taking guns away from LAW ABIDING people won't stop murder in the least.

It says no such thing. The Constitution says nothing about "God-given
rights." In fact, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of religion. Why would a God who says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" issue freedom of religion as a God-given right?

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff Thiele wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

On 25 Mar 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

The constitution of the United States says that it is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT
to protect yourself. I am not saying 'nutcases' should be able to murder people at all. Actually murder is already illegal! Taking guns away from LAW ABIDING people won't stop murder in the least.

It says no such thing. The Constitution says nothing about "God-given rights." In fact, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of religion. Why would a God who says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
issue freedom of religion as a God-given right?

You are correct. I was thinking of the Declaratioon of Independance.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights





... If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

On 26 Mar 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

It says no such thing. The Constitution says nothing about "God-given rights." In fact, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of religio Why would a God who says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" issue freedom of religion as a God-given right?

You are correct. I was thinking of the Declaratioon of Independance.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

I'm pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence does not specifically identify the right to keep and bear arms as one of these Creator-endowed rights.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Hello Jeff,

It says no such thing. The Constitution says nothing about

"God-given

rights." In fact, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of

religio

Why would a God who says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before

me"

issue freedom of religion as a God-given right?

You are correct. I was thinking of the Declaratioon of Independance.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created

equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable

Rights

I'm pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence does not specifically identify the right to keep and bear arms as one of these Creator-endowed rights.

Thomas Jefferson & Co said some pretty nasty things about the
King of England. And even signed their own names to the document,
putting their own heads (literally) on the line ...

--Lee

--
Melts in your mouth, not in your hands

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Jimmy,

Personally, I vote the individual. I explore the platform they claim

to

stand on and I contact them personally whenever possible and make my
decision that way. I'm not a 'party line' voter at all, but at the

same

time I have two specific things I vote "first" - that's pro-life and
anti-gun control. I don't care what flag they fly as long as they
represent my beliefs on these things.

Pro-life and anti-gun control.
How is allowing nutcases such as the nutcase who murdered eight Asian women in Atlanta GA to own guns to do them in?
How is allowing nutcases such as the nutcase who murdered ten people, including a police offier, in Boulder CO to own guns to do them in?
That sounds more like anti-life and pro-murder with guns to me.

How deep do you want to go with this?

As deep as you are willing to go.

The constitution of the United States says that it is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to
protect yourself.

Where does it say that? I can find it nowhere. Not even any mention
of god. Or goddess, for that matter.

I am not saying 'nutcases' should be able to murder people at all.

Nutcases are very capable of doing many things. Including committing
acts of murder. As many have found out, in both Atlanta, Georgia and
Boulder, Colorado.

Actually murder is already illegal!

Doesn't stop nutcases from doing their thing.

Taking guns away from LAW ABIDING people won't stop murder in the least.

Keeping guns away from nutcases might help.

But giving nutcases the right to keep and bear arms is not pro-life
at all, given that so many innocents get slaughtered as a result.
Which is far from what the framers of the US Constitution intended.

I am anti-gun control because it does not work and because it is a violation
of my rights.

Your right to kill innocent people? Are you saying you have the
same rights as nutcases? The same kind of people who slaughtered
so many in Atlanta and Boulder? I do not think you are such a
person who could ever do such a thing. Or even think of doing such
a thing.

The two people who committed acts of murder will be prosecuted
for what they did. And one or both will be either found guilty,
or innocent by reason of insanity. Either way, society will be
protected. As for future cases, something needs to be done to
protect society from further harm. That means some guns should
be taken off the market, or regulated so that certain folks
cannot get access to such guns.

There are already SO many laws on the books that make it where
you have to pay a fee to the government to be able to exercise your right to
own a gun for self defense, hunting, sport shooting, collecting - whatever.

Nobody has the right to murder. The only state-sanctioned murder
is limited to soldiers in the US military. Where guns are very
strictly regulated.

There are MILLIONS of new gun owners since COVID started. How many of those
have started murdering people?

Quite a few, if you care to count. The ones in Atlanta and Boulder
made headlines. But there are a lot more.

If someone gets drunk and drives and has an accident, do you close all the
bars? No. Why not?

It is legal for establishments to serve alcohol. It is not legal
to drink (to excess) and drive.

If someone intentionally runs over someone with their car, do you start
screaming to outlaw cars?

It is legal to drive cars. It is not legal to run over people
with cars.

Or make it where you have to prove you're not a 'nutcase' to be able to
purchase a car? No? Why not?

Certified nutcases are not allowed to drive, as none of them have
a license to drive.

The problem has never been with the 'gun' - the problem is with the person
with murderous intent.

The problem is not just with certain folks who have an intent
to murder others. That is just part of the problem. Easy access
to weapons is, and always has been, a problem.

Some guns need to be taken off the market in order to prevent
such incidents. Semi-automatics are just one of those kind of weapons.

I do NOT defend the actions of these 'nutcases' in any way, shape or form!

Of course not. No sane person would. But it happens. Every day.
And something must be done about it. Sitting on your bum and doing
nothing about it will not stop it from happening again. And again.
And again.

But that does NOT give someone the right to say that *I* shouldn't be
allowed to have a gun for self defense, or hunting, or just going in
the back yard and SAFELY operating my guns for fun.

But it is okay for crazy people to do so? That is not a solution.

Please, give me a chance to defend my position! I welcome it!

You have no defensible position. Why not? Because there is no
defensible position.

As for pro-life - but sounds like pro-murder?

You claim to be pro death penalty, which is anti-life.
Which means you are not pro-life.

Not in the least!

Really? Being in favor of offing even one person is anti-life.
That includes persons on life row.

If someone comes at me or my family with the intent to kill me, I have the
right to defend myself.

People on life row are a threat to no one.

It is not murder if I use deadly force to stop an attack, so that does not
contridict my pro-life stance.

No person on life row will ever attack you. So that is no excuse.
Wanna try again?

When I say pro-life, I mean ALL life,

You claim to be pro-death, especially in regards to imposing
the death penalty on those who have been convicted of certain
crimes. Which means you are not pro-life at all.

but specifically when it comes to a political view I'm speaking
of being AGAINST abortion.

No exceptions. All life, from the moment of conception to the
moment of natural death. Regardless of what that person may have
done in the course of his/her life.

Until you can make that vow, you remain anti-life.

What about the death penalty? Allowing the state to murder people
in my name? That does not sound very pro-life to me. Even if lethal >LL>injection rather than guns is the method used. State-sponsored
murder is still murder. Murder in my name, and in everybody who
is actually pro-life. Or rather pro whole life. From the moment
of conception to the moment of natural death.

I do not believe that capitol punishment is 'murder.'

Then you are pro-death, not anti-life.

There is a distinct difference between killing someone and murder.

"Murder" is no different than "murder in my name". Both are pro-death.
Nobody who is pro-life can be in favor of either.

Murder comes from the heart and is full of hate.

Murder, regardless of who commits it, or sponsors it, is full of hate.
Meaning that no person who is in favor of murder is pro-life.

Killing happens during wartime, in acts of self defense, accidently in the
event of an auto accident, etc.

There is no such thing as a "just war" - as all acts of killing
during times of war are acts of murder.

Not all acts of self-defense are acts of murder, as an individual
may have no other choice as to defending himself or his family.
But some acts of self-defense can be condered acts of murder, if
an alternative was available.

Negligent homicide is not considered as being an act of murder,
but deliberatly ramming one's car into another person or person's
car may be considered an act of murder.

There is no excuse for acts of murder. Violence is violence, and all
such acts should be condemned. Never praised, or used as an excuse.
Either one is pro-life, or anti-life. There is no in-between.

But hey. You do not believe in anything like that.
Otherwise you would stand up and loudly disagree.

I belive in the punishment fitting the crime.

So, if a grandmother backs her car into a school bus, she should
have her drivers license taken away and be booked in the county jail
for the rest of her natural life. But if a kid dies in the incident,
she should be given the juice and then cremated, with her cremations
given to her next of kin. What a pro-life kind of guy!

If an adult makes a conscious decision to murder someone, then they are
agreeing to whatever the punishment is that the state allows.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Is that the kind of world
you want to live in? Grandma backs into a school bus ...

Yeah. Let's eliminate mankind by offing ourselves by abstaining
from sex.

I'm not talking about everyone abstaining and the population die off.

We can always to it by using test tubes rather than by doing it
the old-fashioned way. But that would be taking all the fun out of
it. And I like having fun. As do most people.

I'm talking about UNWANTED pregnacy.

Nuns who are pregnant have a home for pregnant nuns to go to.
Most other women who are pregnant have no such kind of home to
go to. But at least they have the Y. And then there are those
who have no home to go at all. Are you suggesting they terminate
their pregnancies?

Sometimes a physician advises his patient it might be best
for her to end her pregnancy. For her own well-being.

Who am I to say what is best for a woman who is pregnant?
I am a guy, who tries to do what is best for my own self.
Especially since I am not a woman, and not likely ever to
become one anytime soon, if ever.

Isn't that why aborion is performed almost in every case? Cause the baby is
not wanted?

Nuns who are pregnant go to a home for pregnant nuns.
Most nuns want, and do, have their babies. What makes
you think pregnant nuns would not want to have a baby?

Women who are pregnant have a home to go. And most want
to have a baby, rather than have an abortion.

Not every woman has a choice. A doctor might advise
her it would be dangerous for her to continue.

I am not a woman. I am not a doctor. Such choices should be made
between doctor and patient.

I do not consider pregnant women as being anti-life.
I do not consider doctors as being anti-life.

I also do not consider myself as being pro-life.
But rather something better. It's called WHOLE LIFE.

--Lee

--
Hands too small! Can't build a wall!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

Lee Lofaso wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

Hello Jimmy,

Personally, I vote the individual. I explore the platform they claim to
stand on and I contact them personally whenever possible and make my
decision that way. I'm not a 'party line' voter at all, but at the same
time I have two specific things I vote "first" - that's pro-life and
anti-gun control. I don't care what flag they fly as long as they
represent my beliefs on these things.

Pro-life and anti-gun control.
How is allowing nutcases such as the nutcase who murdered eight Asian women in Atlanta GA to own guns to do them in?
How is allowing nutcases such as the nutcase who murdered ten people, including a police offier, in Boulder CO to own guns to do them in? That sounds more like anti-life and pro-murder with guns to me.

How deep do you want to go with this?

As deep as you are willing to go.

The constitution of the United States says that it is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to
protect yourself.

Where does it say that? I can find it nowhere. Not even any mention
of god. Or goddess, for that matter.

Sorry - God given is implied, not stated. The Rights are not provided BY
the Constitution, but prevent the government from infringing on them.

I am not saying 'nutcases' should be able to murder people at all.

Nutcases are very capable of doing many things. Including committing
acts of murder. As many have found out, in both Atlanta, Georgia and Boulder, Colorado.

To this, I agree. I don't know of any case of murder that is 'okay.'

Actually murder is already illegal!

Doesn't stop nutcases from doing their thing.

Exactly! So adding more laws will fix things?

Taking guns away from LAW ABIDING people won't stop murder in the least.

Keeping guns away from nutcases might help.

More laws won't stop people that routinely break the law from aquiring
things illlegaly.

But giving nutcases the right to keep and bear arms is not pro-life
at all, given that so many innocents get slaughtered as a result.
Which is far from what the framers of the US Constitution intended.

Well, if you want to discuss 'nutcases,' where do you draw the line? I think that's where the slippery slope is... Is a 'nutcase' anyone that takes medication for psycological reasons? So someone that takes the occasional prescription med for anxiety attacks. Should they not have the right?

If that's okay, then where is the line? If someone has been committed against their will to a mental institution, then they are already disallowed from legally owning a firearm. Were you aware of that?

I am anti-gun control because it does not work and because it is a violation
of my rights.

Your right to kill innocent people?

My right to protect myself and my family from 'nutcases' and anyone else
that would wish to kill me/us or do us severe bodily harm. The right to protection is not the right to kill innocent people.

Are you saying you have the
same rights as nutcases? The same kind of people who slaughtered
so many in Atlanta and Boulder? I do not think you are such a
person who could ever do such a thing. Or even think of doing such
a thing.

I'm saying that American citizens have the same rights as other American citizens. I'm saying yes I do have the same rights as 'nutcases.' A 'RIGHT'
is just that, a right, not a privalage.

And no, I'm not the type person that could ever do such a deplorable thing!
I have a respect for human life tthat would prevent that.

The two people who committed acts of murder will be prosecuted
for what they did. And one or both will be either found guilty,
or innocent by reason of insanity. Either way, society will be
protected. As for future cases, something needs to be done to
protect society from further harm. That means some guns should
be taken off the market, or regulated so that certain folks
cannot get access to such guns.

And what guns are these? Do you have specifics? Some of the ones
being touted as 'assault weapons' are just the same semi-auto
firearms that have been around for 100+ years. Regular people
can NOT get their hands on fully automatic firearms, like you
see in the movies. The milatary, police and collectors have
those, and you have to have a special permit for them that carries
an extra 'fee' just to own.

So, seriously, what guns are these 'some guns' - and please be
specific.

There are already SO many laws on the books that make it where
you have to pay a fee to the government to be able to exercise your right to
own a gun for self defense, hunting, sport shooting, collecting - whatever.

Nobody has the right to murder. The only state-sanctioned murder
is limited to soldiers in the US military. Where guns are very
strictly regulated.

I agree. No one has the right to murder. Owning a gun does not make
you commit murder. Also, murder can be committed by using a gun,
a knife, a car, a hammer, a lawn mower, a baseball bat, bare
hands... And in ALL of these cases, murder is illegal already and
no one has the right to murder others.

There are MILLIONS of new gun owners since COVID started. How many of those
have started murdering people?

Quite a few, if you care to count. The ones in Atlanta and Boulder
made headlines. But there are a lot more.

And these are new gun owners since COVID?

If someone gets drunk and drives and has an accident, do you close all the
bars? No. Why not?

It is legal for establishments to serve alcohol. It is not legal
to drink (to excess) and drive.

It is legal for establishmentts to sell guns and ammo. It is not legal
to load that ammo and murder someone.

If someone intentionally runs over someone with their car, do you start
screaming to outlaw cars?

It is legal to drive cars. It is not legal to run over people
with cars.

You are making my point for me. :-)

Or make it where you have to prove you're not a 'nutcase' to be able to
purchase a car? No? Why not?

Certified nutcases are not allowed to drive, as none of them have
a license to drive.

That doesn't keep them from driving though... Ever go to traffic court?
There are always people there that were arrested or cited for driving
on an expired license, or driving with no license, or driving with
no insurance, etc. So being "not allowed to drive" does NOT keep
people out from behind the wheel.

The problem has never been with the 'gun' - the problem is with the person
with murderous intent.

The problem is not just with certain folks who have an intent
to murder others. That is just part of the problem. Easy access
to weapons is, and always has been, a problem.

I disagree. Did you know that back during the early 20th century that
you could buy a Thompson Submachine gun in a hardware store? Until the
National Firearms Act in 1934, anyone could own one. After that, you
had to get approval from the government to own one, it becomes registered
to you, and you have to pay a transfer fee to sell it to someone else
that has also passed the background check and paid the fee.

Fast forward to 1968. Until that time, there was no age limit or minimum.
If you wanted to purchase a shotgun tto squirell hunt and you were, say,
12 years old and saved money from mowing yards, you went down to the
local hardware or farm store and paid your money and walked out with one. Sounds like 'easy access' to me!

So, sttarting in 1968, you had to be at least 18 years old to purchase
a gun, so that cuts out a LARGE swath of people. Oh, and you have to
be 21 to purchase a handgun...

Fast forward to 1993. THat's when a background check was instituted.
The national standard is you fill out a 4473 and the form is submitted
for approval. Usually it's 'instant' but there is a possibility of
delay. And some states have a mandatory waiting period where you have
to wait three days or even ten days before you can carry it home.

There are also some states that require you to pay for a permit to
even have the privalge to purchase a gun!

So - please explain to me why you say it's easy access, or better
yet, why it's easy access TODAY when the laws have gotten more
and more extreme over the years.

Some guns need to be taken off the market in order to prevent
such incidents. Semi-automatics are just one of those kind of weapons.

Do you know what a semi-automatic is? Are you a gun owner?

I'm happy to explain what it is and give you examples of semi-auto
weapons...

I do NOT defend the actions of these 'nutcases' in any way, shape or form!

Of course not. No sane person would. But it happens. Every day.
And something must be done about it. Sitting on your bum and doing
nothing about it will not stop it from happening again. And again.
And again.

So is this a case of "we have to DO something" to feel better? I've run
across people with that simple attitude. They don't really have a legitimate solution, just that 'this has to stop!' I'm sincere when I ask that
question!

But that does NOT give someone the right to say that *I* shouldn't be
allowed to have a gun for self defense, or hunting, or just going in
the back yard and SAFELY operating my guns for fun.

But it is okay for crazy people to do so? That is not a solution.

So how do you keep 'crazy people' from getting guns? Destroy them
all? Make it even harder to get them? Do background checks?

Please, give me a chance to defend my position! I welcome it!

You have no defensible position. Why not? Because there is no
defensible position.

Wow. So 'debate' is not a debate? I personally respect your disenting
opinion and am happy to hear your defenses. But I have noo defensible
position?

As for pro-life - but sounds like pro-murder?

You claim to be pro death penalty, which is anti-life.
Which means you are not pro-life.

Not in the least!

Really? Being in favor of offing even one person is anti-life.
That includes persons on life row.

If someone comes at me or my family with the intent to kill me, I have the
right to defend myself.

People on life row are a threat to no one.

I assume you mean death row? Those awaiting execution? I'm not expecting
to have to defend myself against them, so I won't be in a position to
have to defend myself against them.

As for supporting capitol punishment, I don't consider that pro-murder. If
you do, then we have to agree to disagree. But I'm happy to hear your
defenses to your position.

It is not murder if I use deadly force to stop an attack, so that does not
contridict my pro-life stance.

No person on life row will ever attack you. So that is no excuse.
Wanna try again?

See above.

When I say pro-life, I mean ALL life,

You claim to be pro-death, especially in regards to imposing
the death penalty on those who have been convicted of certain
crimes. Which means you are not pro-life at all.

I understand what you are saying. I don't agree, but that's okay.

but specifically when it comes to a political view I'm speaking
of being AGAINST abortion.

No exceptions. All life, from the moment of conception to the
moment of natural death. Regardless of what that person may have
done in the course of his/her life.

Until you can make that vow, you remain anti-life.

Okay - again, your view.

Not all acts of self-defense are acts of murder, as an individual
may have no other choice as to defending himself or his family.
But some acts of self-defense can be condered acts of murder, if
an alternative was available.

Really? Like what? I know all instances are different, but
an act of self defense is to stop the threat. One of the first
things people attempting to protect themselves do is to get
away from the threat. If we can do that without inflicting
any harm then that's the goal! If we do have to stop the
threat, though, what is an alternative?

I belive in the punishment fitting the crime.

So, if a grandmother backs her car into a school bus, she should
have her drivers license taken away and be booked in the county jail
for the rest of her natural life. But if a kid dies in the incident,
she should be given the juice and then cremated, with her cremations
given to her next of kin. What a pro-life kind of guy!

Don't put words in my mouth. An accident is just that - that's not
murder. I don't even think she should have her drivers license taken
away. If she were to intentionally ram a school bus full of kids? That's another case completely!

And capitol punishment is reserved for MURDER, not accidental vehicular homicide. Again, murder comes from the heart, not from not seeing that
vehicle behind you.

If an adult makes a conscious decision to murder someone, then they are
agreeing to whatever the punishment is that the state allows.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Is that the kind of world
you want to live in? Grandma backs into a school bus ...

Not an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Again, gradma didn't commit
'murder' if she backed into a school bus. Do you say that's murder if
she did that?

I'm talking about UNWANTED pregnacy.

Nuns who are pregnant have a home for pregnant nuns to go to.
Most other women who are pregnant have no such kind of home to
go to.

Why do they have to go anywhere? I don't see what that has to
do with abortion as birth control...

But at least they have the Y. And then there are those
who have no home to go at all. Are you suggesting they terminate
their pregnancies?

If I'm anti-abortion, why in the world would I suggest anyone
terminate a pregnancy?

Sometimes a physician advises his patient it might be best
for her to end her pregnancy. For her own well-being.

Yep - for medical reasons, it happens. My wife had an aunt that
had to abort. The baby was definately going to be stillborn and
the aunt had an extremely high chance of death if she went full
term, so they aborted. It wasn't pleasant, and it was still VERY
traumatic, but was a medical nessisity.

Do you know the percentage of total deaths that are medically
nessasary vs those for convience sake?

Who am I to say what is best for a woman who is pregnant?
I am a guy, who tries to do what is best for my own self.
Especially since I am not a woman, and not likely ever to
become one anytime soon, if ever.

What is best for the unborn child? Who will speak up for him/her?

Isn't that why aborion is performed almost in every case? Cause the baby is
not wanted?

Nuns who are pregnant go to a home for pregnant nuns.
Most nuns want, and do, have their babies. What makes
you think pregnant nuns would not want to have a baby?

Then in that case there is no abortion. I'm fine with that.

Women who are pregnant have a home to go. And most want
to have a baby, rather than have an abortion.

Then why are we talking about that in relation to abortion?
I'm not following...

Not every woman has a choice. A doctor might advise
her it would be dangerous for her to continue.

I am not a woman. I am not a doctor. Such choices should be made
between doctor and patient.

I do not consider pregnant women as being anti-life.
I do not consider doctors as being anti-life.

I also do not consider myself as being pro-life.
But rather something better. It's called WHOLE LIFE.

Do you agree with abortion as birth control? Or is that the
woman's right tto 'her' body? And what about the life of
the baby?




... (Tagline under construction)
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

On 01 Apr 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

And what guns are these? Do you have specifics? Some of the ones
being touted as 'assault weapons' are just the same semi-auto
firearms that have been around for 100+ years. Regular people
can NOT get their hands on fully automatic firearms, like you
see in the movies. The milatary, police and collectors have
those, and you have to have a special permit for them that carries
an extra 'fee' just to own.

So, seriously, what guns are these 'some guns' - and please be
specific.

Those would be guns specifically designed to be used against multiple human targets, guns designed to allow fast switching between targets.

It's really weird how the same people who say that assault rifles are no different from other rifles will *also* say that they prefer assault-style rifles because they're the most efficient way to defend themselves, their families, and their homes.

If, in fact, these weapons are "the same semi-auto weapons that have been around for 100+ years," then it wouldn't really change anything to ban them, would it? Or is that not true?

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff Thiele wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

On 01 Apr 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

And what guns are these? Do you have specifics? Some of the ones
being touted as 'assault weapons' are just the same semi-auto
firearms that have been around for 100+ years. Regular people
can NOT get their hands on fully automatic firearms, like you
see in the movies. The milatary, police and collectors have
those, and you have to have a special permit for them that carries
an extra 'fee' just to own.

So, seriously, what guns are these 'some guns' - and please be
specific.

Those would be guns specifically designed to be used against multiple human targets, guns designed to allow fast switching between targets.

That is a function of the accessories on the gun and the skill of the
person pulling the trigger.

I have a .22 Browning semi-auto rifle that holds 11 shots. I've owned it
since I was 7 years old and it's basically an extension of my arm at this point. I could put it 'on target' on 11 different targets in about 4 or
5 seconds. Takes a little longer if the target is smaller (a soda can
instead of a torso sized metal plate).

Hand me my dad's .30-06 deer rifle from 30 years ago? Nope! Never got proficient with it. Would take me 5 seconds just to get ONE thing on
target.

Semi-auto shotgun used for duck hunting: I'm not a shotgun fan (I
prefer rifles and especially handguns for my back yard shooting) so
I'm not proficient, but I have a friend with a PUMP action 10 guage
that can fire three rounds at a target in about 2 seconds.

Semi auto handgun, or pistol. Again, depends on the proficiency. I
know ex military people that can shoot a .45 caliber 1911 and hit
bullseye almost every time, but I'm not good with them. My .40
S&W Shield? I can hit very well with, but the recovery between
shots is much less than with my son's 9mm, but I prefer the larger
caliber.

It's really weird how the same people who say that assault rifles are
no different from other rifles will *also* say that they prefer assault-style rifles because they're the most efficient way to defend themselves, their families, and their homes.

Assault rifles are, by definition, fully automatic. The general public
can NOT own them.

Assault STYLE (you use both terms above)? That's just the way they look.
Take an AR-15 and set it beside an AK-47 and then set a .357 magnum
lever action beside them. Two of them look 'scary' but they are all three
just as deadly. For defensive purposes? Sure, I'll take the AR-15 any day
of the week! It's a smaller 'bullet' - doesn't penetrate through house walls
as much - magazine holds more so it's okay to miss a few times and still
stop the threat - etc.

BUT - that lever action? Actually has a bigger 'bullet' so bigger wound
as well. If you need to put ONE bullet in several targets, that's actually
the better choice, especially if you've gotten proficient with it.

So, to address your comment, assault rifles are VERY different! They are
what the military has and, again, you can NOT go in a store and buy one.

If, in fact, these weapons are "the same semi-auto weapons that have
been around for 100+ years," then it wouldn't really change anything to ban them, would it? Or is that not true?

You are exactly correct!!! It wouldn't change anything to ban them! It would not prevent murder at all! All it would do is take away guns from law abiding people - people that want to defend themselves and their families, or go
duck or deer hunting, or just have fun shooting paper or metal in the back yard.




... Shell to DOS... Come in DOS... Do you copy?
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

On 02 Apr 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

Assault rifles are, by definition, fully automatic. The general public
can NOT own them.

This is demonstrably false. The M16A2 and M16A4 are assault rifles but are not fully automatic.

Assault STYLE (you use both terms above)? That's just the way they look. Take an AR-15 and set it beside an AK-47 and then set a .357 magnum
lever action beside them. Two of them look 'scary' but they are all three just as deadly. For defensive purposes? Sure, I'll take the AR-15 any day of the week! It's a smaller 'bullet' - doesn't penetrate through house walls as much - magazine holds more so it's okay to miss a few times and still stop the threat - etc.

It also has a shorter barrel which facilitates switching targets faster and
use in close quarters. The shorter barrel is part of its "shape" but also a functional consideration.

BUT - that lever action? Actually has a bigger 'bullet' so bigger wound
as well. If you need to put ONE bullet in several targets, that's
actually the better choice, especially if you've gotten proficient with it.

That is a functional consideration as well.

So, to address your comment, assault rifles are VERY different! They are what the military has and, again, you can NOT go in a store and buy one.

What the military has differs in one functional aspect, whereas they share
many functional similarities with consumer-grade assault(-style) rifles. The military versions also have a semi-automatic mode. Are you really making the argument that an M16 in semi mode is not an assault rifle, but an M16 in full auto or 3-round burst mode *is*?

If, in fact, these weapons are "the same semi-auto weapons that have been around for 100+ years," then it wouldn't really change anything ban them, would it? Or is that not true?

You are exactly correct!!! It wouldn't change anything to ban them! It would not prevent murder at all! All it would do is take away guns from law abiding people - people that want to defend themselves and their families, or go duck or deer hunting, or just have fun shooting paper or metal in the back yard.

Nah, they could just go get a different rifle. Maybe they'll get a voucher
for that assault(-style) weapon that they can cash in for a replacement.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff Thiele wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

On 02 Apr 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

Assault rifles are, by definition, fully automatic. The general public
can NOT own them.

This is demonstrably false. The M16A2 and M16A4 are assault rifles but
are not fully automatic.

I don't know where you are getting your information. Can you provide a link?

Here is the wiki page on the M16 and it clearly states that these are selective fire (means semi-auto OR 3 round burst, via a switch). These are
NOT available to the public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

Assault STYLE (you use both terms above)? That's just the way they look. Take an AR-15 and set it beside an AK-47 and then set a .357 magnum
lever action beside them. Two of them look 'scary' but they are all three just as deadly. For defensive purposes? Sure, I'll take the AR-15 any day of the week! It's a smaller 'bullet' - doesn't penetrate through house walls as much - magazine holds more so it's okay to miss a few times and still stop the threat - etc.

It also has a shorter barrel which facilitates switching targets faster and use in close quarters. The shorter barrel is part of its "shape"
but also a functional consideration.

Again, not completely true... A barrel has a minimum length to be called
a rifle. A shorter barrel is called a carbine, but also has a minimum length
or else it is called an SBR - a short barrel rifle - with also requires an extensive background check and an extra $200 fee to purchase.

A typical AR-15 barrel length is 16.5" which is the same as a carbine
lever action, like the one I mentioned above. They are the exact same
length.

Why do I say not completely true? Because that is the minimum length.
Some NON AR-15 style rifles will have a longer barrel. That is not
called a carbine, though.

BUT - that lever action? Actually has a bigger 'bullet' so bigger wound
as well. If you need to put ONE bullet in several targets, that's
actually the better choice, especially if you've gotten proficient with it.

That is a functional consideration as well.

So, to address your comment, assault rifles are VERY different! They are what the military has and, again, you can NOT go in a store and buy one.

What the military has differs in one functional aspect, whereas they
share many functional similarities with consumer-grade assault(-style) rifles. The military versions also have a semi-automatic mode. Are you really making the argument that an M16 in semi mode is not an assault rifle, but an M16 in full auto or 3-round burst mode *is*?

That is the technical definition, yes. If you want to outlaw semi-auto then
you are outlawing my Browning .22, someone else's .22 Ruger semi-auto,
someone else's semi-auto shotgun, someone else's semi-auto deer rifle. Every one of these CAN be used to kill someone, and to do it effectively!

So again, I ask, where are you drawing the line on what YOU would like to
see banned? The AR-15, because it LOOKS like an M-16 and functions the same
as an M-16 in semi auto mode?

If, in fact, these weapons are "the same semi-auto weapons that have been around for 100+ years," then it wouldn't really change anything ban them, would it? Or is that not true?

You are exactly correct!!! It wouldn't change anything to ban them! It would not prevent murder at all! All it would do is take away guns from law abiding people - people that want to defend themselves and their families, or go duck or deer hunting, or just have fun shooting paper or metal in the back yard.

Nah, they could just go get a different rifle. Maybe they'll get a
voucher for that assault(-style) weapon that they can cash in for a replacement.

What kind of car do you have? What if I wanted to see it outlawed? You
could just go get a different one... To a car enthusiast, that would
be a terrible thing to say!

Do you play golf? What I wanted to outlaw the wedge? You could just use
a different club, right?

I happen to enjoy owning and shooting firearms. I do so legally, and
have ALWAYS done so legaly and safely too. The overwelming majority
of people that are gun owners are NOT going out and committing murder,
so again the problem is not with the GUN but with the PERSON.





... Wanted a pair of watch dogs, named the pups Timex and Bulova.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

On 02 Apr 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

Assault rifles are, by definition, fully automatic. The general publi can NOT own them.

This is demonstrably false. The M16A2 and M16A4 are assault rifles bu are not fully automatic.

I don't know where you are getting your information. Can you provide a link?
Here is the wiki page on the M16 and it clearly states that these are selective fire (means semi-auto OR 3 round burst, via a switch). These
are NOT available to the public.

3 round burst is not fully automatic. Ask anyone who's used an M16A1 or M16A3.

It also has a shorter barrel which facilitates switching targets fast and use in close quarters. The shorter barrel is part of its "shape" but also a functional consideration.

Again, not completely true... A barrel has a minimum length to be called a rifle. A shorter barrel is called a carbine, but also has a minimum length or else it is called an SBR - a short barrel rifle - with also requires an extensive background check and an extra $200 fee to purchase.

True enough, though. There is not a set barrel length for rifles; within the definition the barrel length can vary quite a bit.

Why do I say not completely true? Because that is the minimum length.

There you go.

What the military has differs in one functional aspect, whereas they share many functional similarities with consumer-grade assault(-style rifles. The military versions also have a semi-automatic mode. Are yo really making the argument that an M16 in semi mode is not an assault rifle, but an M16 in full auto or 3-round burst mode *is*?

That is the technical definition, yes. If you want to outlaw semi-auto then you are outlawing my Browning .22, someone else's .22 Ruger semi-auto, someone else's semi-auto shotgun, someone else's semi-auto
deer rifle. Every one of these CAN be used to kill someone, and to do it effectively!

I'm not suggesting banning semi-auto. I'm suggesting that both an M16 in semi mode and an AR-15 are assault rifles.

So again, I ask, where are you drawing the line on what YOU would like to see banned? The AR-15, because it LOOKS like an M-16 and functions the same as an M-16 in semi auto mode?

That is the commonly accepted place where the line is drawn, yes. Also the 30-round magazine. BTW, you're talking to someone who carried and used an M16.

What kind of car do you have? What if I wanted to see it outlawed? You could just go get a different one... To a car enthusiast, that would
be a terrible thing to say!

To be honest, I would probably come out ahead in that deal. But, we already
did that? Remember "Cash For Clunkers?" They wanted those vehicles off the road.

Do you play golf? What I wanted to outlaw the wedge? You could just use
a different club, right?

I do not play golf. But if I did, could I use a compressed-air golf ball gun
in tournaments?

I happen to enjoy owning and shooting firearms. I do so legally, and
have ALWAYS done so legaly and safely too. The overwelming majority
of people that are gun owners are NOT going out and committing murder,
so again the problem is not with the GUN but with the PERSON.

However, the overwhelming majority of people that go out and commit murder
are gun owners, whether legal or not. The problem is that the tools needed
to commit crime are too easily available to the wrong people.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff Thiele wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

On 02 Apr 2021, JIMMY ANDERSON said the following...

Assault rifles are, by definition, fully automatic. The general publi can NOT own them.

This is demonstrably false. The M16A2 and M16A4 are assault rifles bu are not fully automatic.

I don't know where you are getting your information. Can you provide a link?
Here is the wiki page on the M16 and it clearly states that these are selective fire (means semi-auto OR 3 round burst, via a switch). These
are NOT available to the public.

3 round burst is not fully automatic. Ask anyone who's used an M16A1 or M16A3.

It's still 'more than one bullet with a single pull of a trigger' and qualifies as automatic in the sense of the ATF and legality.

It also has a shorter barrel which facilitates switching targets fast and use in close quarters. The shorter barrel is part of its "shape" but also a functional consideration.

Again, not completely true... A barrel has a minimum length to be called
a rifle. A shorter barrel is called a carbine, but also has a minimum length or else it is called an SBR - a short barrel rifle - with also requires an extensive background check and an extra $200 fee to purchase.

True enough, though. There is not a set barrel length for rifles;
within the definition the barrel length can vary quite a bit.

Right, but there is a MINIMUM legal length. These rifles all have the
legal minimum length, and again are the same length as other rifles
that are not 'scary black guns.'

Why do I say not completely true? Because that is the minimum length.

There you go.

What's your point?

What the military has differs in one functional aspect, whereas they share many functional similarities with consumer-grade assault(-style rifles. The military versions also have a semi-automatic mode. Are yo really making the argument that an M16 in semi mode is not an assault rifle, but an M16 in full auto or 3-round burst mode *is*?

That is the technical definition, yes. If you want to outlaw semi-auto then you are outlawing my Browning .22, someone else's .22 Ruger semi-auto, someone else's semi-auto shotgun, someone else's semi-auto
deer rifle. Every one of these CAN be used to kill someone, and to do it effectively!

I'm not suggesting banning semi-auto. I'm suggesting that both an M16
in semi mode and an AR-15 are assault rifles.

Sure, qualifies as a suggestion, but not a legal definition as it exists today.

So again, I ask, where are you drawing the line on what YOU would like to see banned? The AR-15, because it LOOKS like an M-16 and functions the same as an M-16 in semi auto mode?

That is the commonly accepted place where the line is drawn, yes. Also
the 30-round magazine. BTW, you're talking to someone who carried and
used an M16.

Why 30? Is that a magic number that is unreasonable for you? Would you be shocked to know that my wife has 30 round and 40 round magazines for her AR-15's? Would it shock you to know that she has 33 round magazines for
her 9mm Sub2000? And a 50 round drum for that as well? These also fit
Glock pistols.

What kind of car do you have? What if I wanted to see it outlawed? You could just go get a different one... To a car enthusiast, that would
be a terrible thing to say!

To be honest, I would probably come out ahead in that deal. But, we already did that? Remember "Cash For Clunkers?" They wanted those
vehicles off the road.

So not something you are interested in. Fair enough. What are you
interested in?

Do you play golf? What I wanted to outlaw the wedge? You could just use
a different club, right?

I do not play golf. But if I did, could I use a compressed-air golf
ball gun in tournaments?

I don't know? Is that in the rules? I don't play golf either.

My point is that there are things that people enjoy that others think
"they don't need that!" I've heard people say, "you don't NEED that
many guns, do you?" But if it's something I enjoy, and enjoy owning,
why should you care what I have and spend my own money on?

I happen to enjoy owning and shooting firearms. I do so legally, and
have ALWAYS done so legaly and safely too. The overwelming majority
of people that are gun owners are NOT going out and committing murder,
so again the problem is not with the GUN but with the PERSON.

However, the overwhelming majority of people that go out and commit
murder are gun owners, whether legal or not. The problem is that the
tools needed to commit crime are too easily available to the wrong
people.

What is your take on handguns? According to the FBI, more murders are
committed with handguns than rifles...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls




... Knive don't kill people -- football players kill people.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

On 03-15-21, JEFF THIELE said to RON LAUZON:

On 13 Mar 2021, Ron Lauzon said the following...

But Lefties don't practice inclusion either. They call it "inclusion",
but it's actually exclusion.

Intolerance is intolerable. Exclusionists are excluded. If you feel left JT>out, ask yourself why that might be.

So....you think murdering someone who's peacefully eating a meal at a sidewalk cafe because they didn't parrot the phrase `black lives matter'....instead
said `ALL lives matter'....is ok?


"If you feel left out....".


Why should anyone feel `left out'?


Those who claim what you seem to be advocating were fine until they started punctuating their `black lives matter' name with violence and mayhem. Even murder.


Marching and protesting is a guaranteed right in that it is peaceful.


Rioting and looting....violence against peaceful citizens....beating up
elderly people because they refused to speak words demanded of them... that isn't. Its criminality. There are laws against what a vast majority of these thugs in both black lives matter and antifa are committing.


What they're doing in much of their activities is anarchy. The antifa organization is the complete opposite of what it claims its' name means.


Both come closer to being terrorist organizations. Both should be outlawed.



(Back in a flash with a nice tagline)


"Mark Zuckerberg sponsoring raid on Area 51 to free his father!"

---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Messaging Since 1991 bbs.docsplace.org (1:135/392)

On 16 Apr 2021, TIM RICHARDSON said the following...

Intolerance is intolerable. Exclusionists are excluded. If you feel lef JT>out, ask yourself why that might be.

So....you think murdering someone who's peacefully eating a meal at a sidewalk cafe because they didn't parrot the phrase `black lives matter'....instead said `ALL lives matter'....is ok?

In general, I don't think killing anyone for any reason is ok. There are a
few exceptions, but this would not be one. Also, I cannot find any news
reports for an incident matching the one you describe. Do you have any more information on it?

"If you feel left out....".
Why should anyone feel `left out'?

The post was about inclusion vs. exclusion. Exclusion means being left out.
If one feels excluded, one feels left out. They're synonyms.

Those who claim what you seem to be advocating were fine until they started punctuating their `black lives matter' name with violence and mayhem. Even murder.

The police were fine, too, until they killed one too many unarmed black
people.

Marching and protesting is a guaranteed right in that it is peaceful.

True, although permits are required in some places.

Rioting and looting....violence against peaceful citizens....beating up elderly people because they refused to speak words demanded of them... that isn't. Its criminality. There are laws against what a vast majority of these thugs in both black lives matter and antifa are committing.

Are these elderly people the ones in the cafe that were murdered? A small number of people are committing crimes; by and large BLM is peaceful. And antifa is a right-wing bogeyman.

What they're doing in much of their activities is anarchy. The antifa organization is the complete opposite of what it claims its' name means.

Again, it's a small group of people compared to a much larger organization
that is peaceful. And antifa movement, such as it is, does not support
fascism. The anarchy you accuse them of is not the "complete opposite" of fascism.

Both come closer to being terrorist organizations. Both should be outlawed.

Again, the violence comes from a small number of people loosely affiliated
with a much larger organization. Maybe police killing unarmed black people borders on terrorism, too.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 04-16-21 20:46, Tim Richardson <=-
spoke to Jeff Thiele about Re: Attacking Dr Seuss <=-

So....you think murdering someone who's peacefully eating a meal at a sidewalk cafe because they didn't parrot the phrase `black lives matter'....instead said `ALL lives matter'....is ok?

Murdering someone is never ok. Has nothing to do with BLM movement.

Those who claim what you seem to be advocating were fine until they started punctuating their `black lives matter' name with violence and mayhem. Even murder.

You are critizing the many for the actions of a few, many of whom are
not even part of the movement.

Marching and protesting is a guaranteed right in that it is peaceful.

Of course.

Rioting and looting....violence against peaceful citizens....beating
up elderly people because they refused to speak words demanded of
them... that isn't. Its criminality.

Of course it is, and has nothing to do with BLM goals.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked in Silver Spring, Maryland. 00:28:29, 07 Jun 2021
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Those who claim what you seem to be advocating were fine until they started punctuating their `black lives matter' name with violence and mayhem. Even murder.

You are critizing the many for the actions of a few, many of whom are
not even part of the movement.

It's uncomfortable to be in the same room as someone who you know murdered another human being.

It's extra uncomfortable when they are part of a racial supremacy group.

The black guys who are locked up with Dylan Roof are probably not comfortable around him, and for that same reason I'm extra vigilant when BLM comes to
town pretending to be locals.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

On 06-06-21, JEFF THIELE said to TIM RICHARDSON:

So....you think murdering someone who's peacefully eating a meal at a sidewalk cafe because they didn't parrot the phrase `black lives matter'....instead said `ALL lives matter'....is ok?

In general, I don't think killing anyone for any reason is ok. There are a JT>few exceptions, but this would not be one. Also, I cannot find any news JT>reports for an incident matching the one you describe. Do you have any JT>more information on it?

It happened.


Firstly...I am not your research assistant.


Secondly....no doubt the MSM either gave it very little mention, or blacked it out altogether.


But it happened.




Tagline;


"A good way to determine if Critical Race Theory is `racist' is to take the word `white' out of every sentence it appears in and replace it with the word `black'. Sure seems `racist', doesn't it?"





---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Messaging Since 1991 bbs.docsplace.org (1:135/392)

On 06-07-21, DALE SHIPP said to TIM RICHARDSON:

On 04-16-21 20:46, Tim Richardson <=-
spoke to Jeff Thiele about Re: Attacking Dr Seuss <=-

So....you think murdering someone who's peacefully eating a meal at a sidewalk cafe because they didn't parrot the phrase `black lives matter'....instead said `ALL lives matter'....is ok?

Murdering someone is never ok. Has nothing to do with BLM movement.

Those who claim what you seem to be advocating were fine until they
started punctuating their `black lives matter' name with violence and mayhem. Even murder.

You are critizing the many for the actions of a few, many of whom are
not even part of the movement.

Marching and protesting is a guaranteed right in that it is peaceful.

Of course.

Rioting and looting....violence against peaceful citizens....beating
up elderly people because they refused to speak words demanded of
them... that isn't. Its criminality.

Of course it is, and has nothing to do with BLM goals.

It must have to do with BLM...those doing it are *BLM*!



Tagline;


"I'm so old that I've picked up the telephone to make a call, and heard an operator say; "number please"; remember when 45 rpm records were all the rage; black and white tv with tin foil on the rabbit ears were for everyone; and people went through an entire day without taking any `selfies'!"



---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fidonet Messaging Since 1991 bbs.docsplace.org (1:135/392)

On 11 Jul 2021, TIM RICHARDSON said the following...

So....you think murdering someone who's peacefully eating a meal at a sidewalk cafe because they didn't parrot the phrase `black lives matter'....instead said `ALL lives matter'....is ok?

In general, I don't think killing anyone for any reason is ok. There ar JT>few exceptions, but this would not be one. Also, I cannot find any news JT>reports for an incident matching the one you describe. Do you have any JT>more information on it?

It happened.

Did it? Do you have any evidence?

Firstly...I am not your research assistant.

You are your own research assistant. You're the one saying it happened; prove it.

Secondly....no doubt the MSM either gave it very little mention, or blacked it out altogether.

Or it didn't happen.

But it happened.

Did it, though?

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Hello Tim,

So....you think murdering someone who's peacefully eating a meal at a
sidewalk cafe because they didn't parrot the phrase `black lives
matter'....instead said `ALL lives matter'....is ok?

In general, I don't think killing anyone for any reason is ok. There are

a

few exceptions, but this would not be one. Also, I cannot find any news
reports for an incident matching the one you describe. Do you have any
more information on it?

It happened.

If you say so.

Firstly...I am not your research assistant.

I would certainly hope not.

Secondly....no doubt the MSM either gave it very little mention, or blacked
it out altogether.

Why would anyone want to mention what never happened?

But it happened.

If you say so.

Even if it didn't.

--Lee

--
Not my president!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)