In article <XnsB1DADF0DFED16629555@185.151.15.160>, noemail@aol.com
says...
>
> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
> news:vaiurn$2kk15$2@dont-email.me:
>
> > On 2024-08-26, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/26/24 2:53 PM, chrisv wrote:
> >>> Skeeter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> -highhorse wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those
> >>>>> who fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually
> >>>>> worth.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do you care what someone else spends?
> >>>
> >>> -highhorse knows better than the free market. Others are to be
> >>> ridiculed for making the "wrong" choice. I'm somewhat surprised
> >>> that he hasn't whined about "too much choice" in the gun market, and
> >>> tasked you with producing a "definitive guide" to which gun to buy.
> >>>
> >>
> >> On the contrary: I'm acknowledging that marketing hype works.
> >>
> >> Case in point - how's your "Ultimate Driving Machine" these days?
> >>
> >> ...because its still at 3rd place on the Autobahn social hierarchy,
> >> despite how much they've invested in their marketing slogan. Golly!
> >>
> >>
> >> -hh
> >
> > The media is very powerful and those who control the media control the
> > people.
>
>
> Then why did Trump win in 2016?

The left didn't cheat because Killary thought she had it in the bag.

Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote in news:XnsB1DADF0DFED16629555@
185.151.15.160:

> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
> news:vaiurn$2kk15$2@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 2024-08-26, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/26/24 2:53 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>>> Skeeter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those
>>>>>> who fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually
>>>>>> worth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you care what someone else spends?
>>>>
>>>> -highhorse knows better than the free market. Others are to be
>>>> ridiculed for making the "wrong" choice. I'm somewhat surprised
>>>> that he hasn't whined about "too much choice" in the gun market, and
>>>> tasked you with producing a "definitive guide" to which gun to buy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On the contrary: I'm acknowledging that marketing hype works.
>>>
>>> Case in point - how's your "Ultimate Driving Machine" these days?
>>>
>>> ...because its still at 3rd place on the Autobahn social hierarchy,
>>> despite how much they've invested in their marketing slogan. Golly!
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> The media is very powerful and those who control the media control the
>> people.
>
>
> Then why did Trump win in 2016?
>
Well, duh - the Media is on tRump's side. They are NOT non-partisan.

Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:amvqcjhs6lc0fvkg5l30fuiu0vvde5r85i@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:05:36 -0400, -hh
> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8/26/24 2:53 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>> Skeeter wrote:
>>>
>>>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those
>>>>> who fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually
>>>>> worth.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you care what someone else spends?
>>>
>>> -highhorse knows better than the free market. Others are to be
>>> ridiculed for making the "wrong" choice. I'm somewhat surprised
>>> that he hasn't whined about "too much choice" in the gun market, and
>>> tasked you with producing a "definitive guide" to which gun to buy.
>>>
>>
>>On the contrary: I'm acknowledging that marketing hype works.
>>
>>Case in point - how's your "Ultimate Driving Machine" these days?
>>
>>...because its still at 3rd place on the Autobahn social hierarchy,
>>despite how much they've invested in their marketing slogan. Golly!
>
> In the nineteen fifties, Phillip Morris' Marlboro was a slow seller
> trying to compete with RJ Reynolds' Winston. In the nineteen sixties
> their ad agency came up with the Marlboro man. What was once a
> "women's smoke" quickly became America's best selling cigarette.
>
> AI Overview
> "As of February 2024, Marlboro is the world's best-selling cigarette
> brand, and has been since 1972. Marlboro is produced by Philip Morris
> International (PMI), a New York-based company that sells its products
> in more than 180 countries. In 2023, PMI had over $31.8 billion in
> sales, making it the world's leading tobacco company by net sales.
> Marlboro is popular with affluent urban smokers who prefer
> high-quality international brands. It also has a large share of the US
> cigarette market, holding over 40%."
> Search terms: "best selling cigarette in the world"
>
> The power of marketing.
>
> Trump tweet
> "My administration will be great for women and reproductive rights."
> Is he crazy? He's been bragging about getting rid of Roe for years.
> He claimed in his first and second general election campaigns he'd
> sign a national ban. Now he's flip flopped and said he wouldn't.
>
> Worse than the hypocrisy is that he thinks anybody with more than two
> brain cells to rub together would believe him.
>
Actually, tRump KNOWS there are a lot out there that are missing those
brain cells - and some of them inhabit this newsgroup.

Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fl2rcj5ai1f5buec6dbnijuehqmn2kfl7p@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:37:51 -0700, "max headroom"
> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:6f4lcj558mefa7ojj9d2nm7244051aghs7@4ax.com, X, formerly known
>>as "!Jones" <x@y.com> typed:
>>
>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial
>>> 911!
>>
>>>>>> ... Jones claims, without a shred of evidence.
>>
>>>>> You can't prove gravity either, Headley.
>>
>>>> We have evidence of gravity.
>>
>>> Depends on what you call "evidence", Headley. We know that masses
>>> accelerate together, and we can measure & predict the acceleration;
>>> however, we don't know why it's so. You can't show me a piece of
>>> gravity.
>>
>>www.ligo.caltech.edu
>>
>>> Whenever guns proliferate, gun violence also proliferates; however,
>>> you refuse to accept that fact as "evidence".
>>
>>And whenever knives proliferate, knife violence also proliferates;
>>whenever swords proliferate, sword violence also proliferates;
>>whenever bows and arrows proliferate, bow and arrow violence also
>>proliferates; whenever lances proliferate, lance violence also
>>proliferates....
>>
>>Your point?
>
> That guns are more deadly and kill more people faster and from a
> longer distance away than those other methods. If that were not true,
> there would be no guns.

And there's no 2A protection of those other methods - they get regulated.
Meanwhile a court just ruled protecting ownership of a machine gun.

>
> "Trump: 'I was able to kill Roe v. Wade' The former president and
> front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination leans into his key
> role in eliminating federal abortion rights, taking credit for
> state-level bans."
> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-was-able-kill-roe-
> v-wade-rcna84897
>
>
> --
> #NEVERtrump
>

Baxter wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote in news:XnsB1DADF0DFED16629555@
> 185.151.15.160:
>
>> somebody wrote:
>>>
>>> The media is very powerful and those who control the media control the
>>> people.
>>
>> Then why did Trump win in 2016?
>>
> Well, duh - the Media is on tRump's side. They are NOT non-partisan.

The "mainstream" media for years have treated Trump with kid-gloves, in my
opinion. They would hammer on Biden and the economy without any reference to
how bad it got under Trump. They show only his least k00ky video segments.

The media are run by wealthy people who think they will benefit from Trump's
tax breaks, while tariffs and mass deportation might well crater our economy
worse than COVID-19 did.

--
Snow Day -- stay home.

"Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
news:66c8b14d$0$3620706$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> In article <vaa8ft$v0om$12@dont-email.me>,
> me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
>>
>> "Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:66c7b639$0$2385531$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
>> > In article <va8c22$j60a$4@dont-email.me>, maximusheadroom@gmx.com
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> In news:6pjecjdvng9f0bp068c0phb142670su0pg@4ax.com, Governor Swill
>> >> <governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:30:19 -0500, "Scout"
>> >> > <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> So, yea, I think some ground pounder in Iraq could easily say they
>> >> >> carried
>> >> >> an M16 during that conflict and it would be totally truthful.
>> >>
>> >> >> Certainly gun grabbing Democrats would never be able to tell the
>> >> >> difference.
>> >>
>> >> > You may have missed the challenge to Skeeter's claim.
>> >>
>> >> > Walz never claimed to have carried an M16.
>> >>
>> >> He claimed it was an AR15, didn't he?
>> >
>> > He never carried a weapon in combat. He was never in combat.
>>
>> So you're saying he wasn't even in Iraq?
>>
>>
>
> That I don't know but he was never in combat.

neither was Biden, so what's your point?

"Chris Ahlstrom" <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote in message
news:vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me...
> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
>>
>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict, regulate or control
>> AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
>>
>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22 semiauto.
>
> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in your belly?

One for every time I get to run you over with my car.....

Shall we ban cars, because they can be used to hurt or kill people?

They certainly do so regularly.

But I acknowledge your lame attempt to change the subject.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vacfp3$1c72d$2@dont-email.me...
> On 8/23/24 12:50 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> In article <vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me>, OFeem1987@teleworm.us says...
>>>
>>> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
>>>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict, regulate or control
>>>> AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
>>>>
>>>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22 semiauto.
>>>
>>> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in your belly?
>>
>> Was that a threat? Just because a gun exists doesn't mean it's going to
>> shoot anyone.
>
> Nah, its not a threat: its simply humiliating 'Scout' for his attempt to
> try to downplay the caliber.

Not at all, because caliber is very much a determining factor in
lethalness..
And of course the military uses full metal jacket, which are also
significantly less lethal.

But I tell you what, I will give you a .22 AR-15 and I will take my old
Garand 30-06 and we will start at 1000 yards and we will see which
survives...

>
> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is an
> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays for them
> relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>
> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly higher QA
> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>
>
> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just like how
> automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them too.
>
>
> -hh

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vadlcv$1i6rk$3@dont-email.me...
> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
> news:66ca3cca$0$1895493$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>
>> In article <vacfp3$1c72d$2@dont-email.me>,
>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>
>>> On 8/23/24 12:50 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> > In article <vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me>, OFeem1987@teleworm.us
>>> > says...
>>> >>
>>> >> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> >>
>>> >>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >>> news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
>>> >>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
>>> >>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict, regulate or
>>> >>> control AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22 semiauto.
>>> >>
>>> >> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in your
>>> >> belly?
>>> >
>>> > Was that a threat? Just because a gun exists doesn't mean it's
>>> > going to shoot anyone.
>>>
>>> Nah, its not a threat: its simply humiliating 'Scout' for his
>>> attempt to try to downplay the caliber.
>>
>> It was a threat.
>>>
>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is
>>> an interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays
>>> for them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>> market...
>>
>> It's just a gun.
>>>
>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly higher
>>> QA and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>
>> It's still just a gun.
>>>
>>>
>>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just like
>>> how automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them
>>> too.
>>
>> Guns don't kill people.
>>
>
> But people kill people with guns multiple times every day.

But people kill people with cars multiple times every day.

Shall we treat cars like you want to treat guns?

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vae09p$1jk47$4@dont-email.me...
> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in news:66ca7ffc$0$2757
> $882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>
>> In article <vadlcv$1i6rk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:66ca3cca$0$1895493$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>>
>>> > In article <vacfp3$1c72d$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >> On 8/23/24 12:50 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> >> > In article <vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me>, OFeem1987@teleworm.us
>>> >> > says...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >> >>> news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
>>> >> >>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
>>> >> >>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
>>> >> >>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict, regulate or
>>> >> >>> control AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22 semiauto.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in your
>>> >> >> belly?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Was that a threat? Just because a gun exists doesn't mean it's
>>> >> > going to shoot anyone.
>>> >>
>>> >> Nah, its not a threat: its simply humiliating 'Scout' for his
>>> >> attempt to try to downplay the caliber.
>>> >
>>> > It was a threat.
>>> >>
>>> >> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR
> is
>>> >> an interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
> pays
>>> >> for them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>> >> market...
>>> >
>>> > It's just a gun.
>>> >>
>>> >> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly
> higher
>>> >> QA and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>> >
>>> > It's still just a gun.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just like
>>> >> how automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them
>>> >> too.
>>> >
>>> > Guns don't kill people.
>>> >
>>>
>>> But people kill people with guns multiple times every day.
>>
>> Yea people kill. Not guns. Should we ban cars? They kill people.
>>
>
> People kill far more other people with guns on purpose than by any other
> means.

I see.. so now it's a matter of INTENT.

Tell me if someone intends to kill, how will restricting one means eliminate
that intent?

When they hop in a car and run their victim down.. shall we ban cars?

What about Knives? Clubs? Poison?

How many inanimate objects are you going to blame for the will of the person
to kill?

Here's an idea.. let's ban violent criminals. You know, let's lock them up
for as long as we can under the law, and I bet we would see a LOT less
violent crime..

Because a person willing to kill can find all kinds of means to do so....
unless they are in jail, then they have pretty limited options.

So how long will you blame inanimate objects for what a person does with
them?

"Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
news:66ca8882$0$2385541$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> In article <vae09p$1jk47$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
> says...
>>
>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in news:66ca7ffc$0$2757
>> $882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>
>> > In article <vadlcv$1i6rk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:66ca3cca$0$1895493$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <vacfp3$1c72d$2@dont-email.me>,
>> >> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 8/23/24 12:50 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me>, OFeem1987@teleworm.us
>> >> >> > says...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>> news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
>> >> >> >>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
>> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict, regulate or
>> >> >> >>> control AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22 semiauto.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in your
>> >> >> >> belly?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Was that a threat? Just because a gun exists doesn't mean it's
>> >> >> > going to shoot anyone.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nah, its not a threat: its simply humiliating 'Scout' for his
>> >> >> attempt to try to downplay the caliber.
>> >> >
>> >> > It was a threat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR
>> is
>> >> >> an interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>> pays
>> >> >> for them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>> >> >> market...
>> >> >
>> >> > It's just a gun.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly
>> higher
>> >> >> QA and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's still just a gun.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just like
>> >> >> how automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them
>> >> >> too.
>> >> >
>> >> > Guns don't kill people.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> But people kill people with guns multiple times every day.
>> >
>> > Yea people kill. Not guns. Should we ban cars? They kill people.
>> >
>>
>> People kill far more other people with guns on purpose than by any other
>> means.
>
> Yes, "people" kill people.
>>
>> BTW - you say that "guns don't kill people" but that cars, an inanemate
>> object, do? You think that parked car is just sitting their waiting to
>> get close enough so it can kill you? You think cars kill people on
>> purpose?
>
> Do you think a gun is just sitting around looking for someone to shoot?
> You fucking moron.

I think it's because:
1) He refuses to hold criminals accountable for their actions
2) He needs an excuse to justify his desire to ban something he doesn't like

In short, he has no logical reason for his agenda.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vae6ra$1o65c$2@dont-email.me...
> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
> news:66ca8882$0$2385541$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>
>> In article <vae09p$1jk47$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in news:66ca7ffc$0$2757
>>> $882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>>
>>> > In article <vadlcv$1i6rk$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> > bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
>>> >> news:66ca3cca$0$1895493$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>> >>
>>> >> > In article <vacfp3$1c72d$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> >> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On 8/23/24 12:50 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> >> >> > In article <vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> >> >> > OFeem1987@teleworm.us says...
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >> >> >>> message news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> >>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
>>> >> >> >>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
>>> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict,
>>> >> >> >>> regulate or control AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22 semiauto.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in
>>> >> >> >> your belly?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Was that a threat? Just because a gun exists doesn't mean
>>> >> >> > it's going to shoot anyone.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Nah, its not a threat: its simply humiliating 'Scout' for his
>>> >> >> attempt to try to downplay the caliber.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It was a threat.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the
>>> >> >> AR
>>> is
>>> >> >> an interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>>> pays
>>> >> >> for them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>> >> >> market...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It's just a gun.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly
>>> higher
>>> >> >> QA and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It's still just a gun.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just
>>> >> >> like how automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable
>>> >> >> for them too.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Guns don't kill people.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> But people kill people with guns multiple times every day.
>>> >
>>> > Yea people kill. Not guns. Should we ban cars? They kill people.
>>> >
>>>
>>> People kill far more other people with guns on purpose than by any
>>> other means.
>>
>> Yes, "people" kill people.
>
> Mainly with guns. When people use other means to kill people we regulate
> those things and don't protect them.

Ok.. Knives. Used to kill people.
Please list the regulations we have that prevents criminals from getting
knives.

Cars. Used to kill people
Please list the regulation we have that prevent criminals from getting cars.

I would simply note that based on your criteria we shouldn't restrict the
sale of AR-15s as they are very rarely used to kill people.

>>> BTW - you say that "guns don't kill people" but that cars, an
>>> inanemate object, do? You think that parked car is just sitting
>>> their waiting to get close enough so it can kill you? You think cars
>>> kill people on purpose?
>>
>> Do you think a gun is just sitting around looking for someone to
>> shoot? You fucking moron.
>>
> You're evading the point, because you know your support of guns is evil.

So you're saying supporting facts is evil???

I would just note that denying people the best means of self defense could
also be considered evil.....

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vag0cm$229qo$1@dont-email.me...
> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
> news:66cb553b$1$1895501$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>
>> In article <vae6ra$1o65c$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:66ca8882$0$2385541$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>>
>>> > In article <vae09p$1jk47$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> > bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in news:66ca7ffc$0$2757
>>> >> $882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>> >>
>>> >> > In article <vadlcv$1i6rk$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> >> > bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
>>> >> >> news:66ca3cca$0$1895493$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > In article <vacfp3$1c72d$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> >> >> > recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> On 8/23/24 12:50 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > In article <vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> >> >> >> > OFeem1987@teleworm.us says...
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
>>> >> >> >> >> royalties:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >> >> >> >>> message
>>> >> >> >> >>> news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> >> >>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
>>> >> >> >> >>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
>>> >> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict,
>>> >> >> >> >>> regulate or control AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22
>>> >> >> >> >>> semiauto.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in
>>> >> >> >> >> your belly?
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Was that a threat? Just because a gun exists doesn't mean
>>> >> >> >> > it's going to shoot anyone.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Nah, its not a threat: its simply humiliating 'Scout' for
>>> >> >> >> his attempt to try to downplay the caliber.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > It was a threat.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of
>>> >> >> >> the AR
>>> >> is
>>> >> >> >> an interesting one, particularly in light of how little the
>>> >> >> >> DoD
>>> >> pays
>>> >> >> >> for them relative to how much they retail for in the
>>> >> >> >> civilian market...
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > It's just a gun.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has
>>> >> >> >> significantly
>>> >> higher
>>> >> >> >> QA and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > It's still just a gun.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product,
>>> >> >> >> just like how automakers push SUVs because they're more
>>> >> >> >> profitable for them too.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Guns don't kill people.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> But people kill people with guns multiple times every day.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Yea people kill. Not guns. Should we ban cars? They kill people.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> People kill far more other people with guns on purpose than by any
>>> >> other means.
>>> >
>>> > Yes, "people" kill people.
>>>
>>> Mainly with guns. When people use other means to kill people we
>>> regulate those things and don't protect them.
>>
>> Like cars and gins and baseball bats?
>
> We regulate cars - License the car and the driver, require insurance, and
> much more. And if you violate certain various rules, your car or permit
> to operate can be taken away from you.

We do? I bought by first car when I was 14. Was driving it on-road when I
was 14. Didn't even get my learners until I was 15.
Even got a ticket once for no license, registration or insurance. Simply
pointed out to the judge the law, and all charges were dismissed with the
officer being reprimanded for wasting the court's time and our time.

Indeed, a lot of people own cars and drive cars that have none of that, and
they regularly drive those cars.

Further, if we examine those laws.. ALL of them apply to use in public, on
public property. NONE of them apply to cars or the operation of cars on
private property much less ownership of such cars.

Finally, let's consider a similar application.. carry of a gun in public.
That can be and often is regulated, which can include licenses, permits,
fees, insurance, etc.

Just like cars.

Unlike cars however, you want to regulate the simple ownership of guns.

Why? Because you don't like guns.

Hardly a valid reason.

>
> Gins? How many cotten gins are near you? Those are regulated by OSHA.
>
> How often are Baseball bats used to kill someone? What happens if you
> strap a couple to your back and go shopping at WalMart?

So if you're killed with a bat, you're less dead? If I strap a couple on my
back and go shopping.. no problem.
I mean you do know that Walmart sells baseball bats right? They will even
sell them to children. No permits required.

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>
>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is that it
>>is a tool for killing
>
> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter. The
> gun doesn't decide its purpose.

Actually, given how much ammo is used on paper, steel and clay... looks like
making holes in paper, banging steel and breaking clay disks are the primary
purpose of a gun.
Even hunting comes into a far distant second to such activities.
And murder? A small fraction well below 1%

Even military guns are made NOT to kill for the most part.

Na, in all honesty, Baxter's assertion isn't the truth.. it's a lame attempt
for him to justify his hatred of guns and those who have them.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vag5tr$233sh$3@dont-email.me...
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
> in
> news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
> ing.dwarf.com:
>
>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>
>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is that
>>>it is a tool for killing
>>
>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter. The
>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>
> So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
> groomer KKKlaun?
>
> Who said the gun decided anything? It is a tool - and like any tool it is
> designed for a specific purpose. A screwdriver is not designed for
> driving nails, a nail is not designed for picking oranges. Every tool has
> a specific purpose and guns are designed/invented for killing.

Actually most guns will never kill anything bigger than a bug. I would just
note that clubs were designed/invented for killing. Knives even more so.
Yet, you have no issues with them. Why is that?

>>>- some variations are for killing game, other
>>>variations are for killing people --
>>
>> So what, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter?
>>
>>>it was still invented for the
>>>purpose of killing people (arrows and snares worked better for game
>>>back then.)
>>
>> You have no idea what you're talking about, city boy.
>>
> I grew up on the farm with guns. My dad was a Marine, then in the
> Sheriffs Reserve.

Somehow I doubt that very seriously given your dislike, hatred and ignorance
of guns.

Indeed, with all those guns around, it's got to be amazing you're still
alive if their purpose was only to kill you........

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me...
> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> -hh says...
>>> ...
>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is an
>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays for
>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>
>> It's just a gun.
>
> Doesn't matter: a poor value product is still a poor value product.

And yet a lot of people buy them every year because they are a good value.

>
>
>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly higher QA
>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>
>> It's still just a gun.
>
>
> So? The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay too much.

Yea, but you have to consider the low quality the military will accept vs
what civilians demand.

I mean your standard military M16 only have to shoot a 5" group at 100
yards.. Civilians often demand 1" groupings or less.

That means tighter (and more expensive) tolerances. Then you have to have a
great finish matched between parts.. where as a military finish can vary
vastly even on the same part.

If you want to pay military prices.. you can get that, if you buy in bulk
and aren't too concerned over the details like accuracy or appearance.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vahrqn$24i6v$2@dont-email.me...
> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>
>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> -hh says...
>>>>> ...
>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is
>>>>> an
>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays for
>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>>>
>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter: a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>
>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>
> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL standards
> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution channel.

BS.. I don't know a civilian that would accept 5 MOA out of the box as the
military does.
Oh, sure, civilians will buy them... for a fraction of what the military
paid for them, and the turn around and dump in a bunch of parts to make it
better.. or they just want a plinker where accuracy and such aren't really
an issue.

Ever compare the prices the military buys stuff for vs what it sells for as
military surplus?
Then keeping in mind that government is buying in BULK. Na, government
equipment is OK, but civilian is far superior.

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2vehcj5e1p7tj03obj71utrvc2ge5hig3r@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 09:34:02 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> First, you know I'm not Rudy,
>>
>>Prove it.
>
> Done.

So, you have... NOTHING

Typical Rudy rebuttal.

Claim victory, and run away.

On 8/26/24 4:48 PM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:vahri1$24i6v$1@dont-email.me, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
> typed:
>
>> On 8/25/24 5:01 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>> In news:vafqk3$210a8$2@dont-email.me, -hh typed:
>>>> On 8/20/24 12:49 AM, max headroom wrote:
>
>>>>> You think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander?
>
>>>> What you're trying to get people to believe is that a CSM was notified
>>>> by DA HQ of the deployment *before* the Unit Commander was notified.
>
>>> Is English not your mother tongue?
>
>> Your attempted insult shows the readers that you read the above and that
>> you know that your argument is invalid.
>
>> Indeed, ridiculously so.
>
>> You've clearly never learned how the US Army operates: likely because
>> the comic strip "Beetle Bailey" is the limit of your knowledge.
>
> So you DO think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander.

Nope.

Because you've chosen to mix up the point of the Command Structure:

Orders *do not* come in directly to the CSM, who then orders his
Commander around.

Orders come in to the Command, and the Commander then disseminates them
down the chain of command - which includes the CSM & other senior NCOs.

About the only way that a CSM would know of a deployment order before
the Commander is if they're working in the communications unit and
intercept the orders (which IIRC used to come in via secure teletype)
while it is being staffed up to the Commander's attention. But even
this is not the CSM being notified by HQ: the orders are for the
Commander, so it is that NCO while working for the Commander happening
to be in the communication chain from HQ to Commander and seeing the
orders while en route (which may or may not be a security breach).

-hh

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vai6p3$2ggu5$2@dont-email.me...
> On 8/26/24 9:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>> -hh says...
>>>
>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter: a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL standards
>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution channel.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly higher
>>>>>>> QA
>>>>>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So? The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay too
>>>>> much.
>>>>
>>>> So? Why do you care?
>>>
>>> Its the same fools who try the "derp! it wasn't an M16, but an M16A2!"
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just like
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guns don't kill people.
>>>>>
>>>>> So then if they're so harmless, you're saying that you're also willing
>>>>> to take the same risk of being hit by a few rounds...right?
>>>>
>>>> The gun didn't shoot them. The person holding the gun did.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, you've defended the claim that "its just a fancy .22!" /s
>>>>
>>>> It is. and how it's used is up to the person holding it.
>>>
>>> So you going to stand downrange to take a few 'mosquito bites' or not?
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> It's still just a gun.
>
> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those who fail
> to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually worth.

Hmmm.. So tell me how exactly did you determine it's worth half of what
people are paying and why hasn't someone come along selling it at a 25%
discount and still making a fortune?

Free hint: most military issue is garbage, and many will buy superior
civilian issue, because they know they can depend on it when their life is
on the line.

Nope, military issue is generally not very good.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vake0k$2vdj8$1@dont-email.me...
> On 8/26/24 7:38 PM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:vahrqn$24i6v$2@dont-email.me, -hh
>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>> typed:
>>
>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>>>> says...
>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> -hh says...
>> ...
>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>
>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter: a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>
>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>
>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL standards
>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution
>>> channel....
>>
>> Not in the U.S.
>
> With ~99% parts commonality, why wouldn't both be coming off of the same
> production line?

Well, most of the military stuff is probably what didn't pass quality
control standards for the civilian market.

After all the government has no issues buying a 5 MOA rifle.. Civilian
market tends to top out at about 2 MOA with sub MOA being referred by
civilan shooters.

"max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:vab2nh$12pr2$2@dont-email.me...
> In news:o82icjpj5e0dl2o683kb4r80ebdjtk404p@4ax.com, X, formerly known as
> "!Jones" <x@y.com> typed:
>
>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>
>>> In news:q25fcjdokubeke0gp89bf8mddk4ngf4sae@4ax.com, X, formerly known as
>>> "!Jones" <x@y.com> typed:
>
>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
>
>>>> I'm not speaking from personal knowledge because *I* didn't retire
>>>> from the military; however, it is my understanding that one submits a
>>>> *request* to retire that may either be approved or denied by the
>>>> command.
>
>>>> Methinks y'all are wasting your time with the "swift-boat" crap. That
>>>> worked with Kerry because he took an oblique swipe at Bush's service
>>>> (such as it was) in the Alabama Air National Guard and touted his own
>>>> medals (which he had thrown away in front of a national TV camera crew
>>>> a few years earlier.) Kerry was *not* a favorite of the Vietnam
>>>> Veterans!
>
>>>> Today, the Donald was an *obvious* draft dodger during the Vietnam War
>>>> and Walz has never touted any specific heroics... you're wasting your
>>>> time. You won't find a great audiance willing to hit their "like"
>>>> buttons because Walz is well respected in military circles... *most*
>>>> will tend to vote for him...
>
>>> ... Jones claims, without a shred of evidence.
>
>> You can't prove gravity either, Headley.
>
> We have evidence of gravity.

Well if Jones says there is no proof of gravity.. then we can pitch him off
a 100 story building.. and he should be fine.

I predict he will change his mind as he passes the 50th floor and get
religion by the time he gets to the 20th.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vakoph$3144l$4@dont-email.me...
> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:fl2rcj5ai1f5buec6dbnijuehqmn2kfl7p@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:37:51 -0700, "max headroom"
>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:6f4lcj558mefa7ojj9d2nm7244051aghs7@4ax.com, X, formerly known
>>>as "!Jones" <x@y.com> typed:
>>>
>>>> If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial
>>>> 911!
>>>
>>>>>>> ... Jones claims, without a shred of evidence.
>>>
>>>>>> You can't prove gravity either, Headley.
>>>
>>>>> We have evidence of gravity.
>>>
>>>> Depends on what you call "evidence", Headley. We know that masses
>>>> accelerate together, and we can measure & predict the acceleration;
>>>> however, we don't know why it's so. You can't show me a piece of
>>>> gravity.
>>>
>>>www.ligo.caltech.edu
>>>
>>>> Whenever guns proliferate, gun violence also proliferates; however,
>>>> you refuse to accept that fact as "evidence".
>>>
>>>And whenever knives proliferate, knife violence also proliferates;
>>>whenever swords proliferate, sword violence also proliferates;
>>>whenever bows and arrows proliferate, bow and arrow violence also
>>>proliferates; whenever lances proliferate, lance violence also
>>>proliferates....
>>>
>>>Your point?
>>
>> That guns are more deadly and kill more people faster and from a
>> longer distance away than those other methods. If that were not true,
>> there would be no guns.
>
> And there's no 2A protection of those other methods

Are you saying they aren't arms?

On what basis do you make that assertion?

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vagrpk$2a8pc$1@dont-email.me...
> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in
> news:vag70e$23aco$4@dont-email.me:
>
>> In news:vag115$229qo$8@dont-email.me, Baxter
>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>
>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in news:66cb751b$1$212411
>>> $882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>>> In article <vafqk3$210a8$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>> On 8/20/24 12:49 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>
>>>>>> You think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander?
>>
>>>>> What you're trying to get people to believe is that a CSM was
>>>>> notified by DA HQ of the deployment *before* the Unit Commander was
>>>>> notified.
>>
>>>>> Are you really sure that that's the hill you want to die on?
>>
>>>> Walz lied.
>>
>>> No he did not...
>>
>> Yeah, he did.
>>
>> https://freebeacon.com/democrats/for-tim-walz-a-pattern-of-prevaricatio
>> ns-stretches-back-almost-two-decades/
>>
> LOL, and as reference you cite a conservaturd site specializing in
> propaganda lies.

And your proof to refute the evidence presented is what exactly?

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vaje46$2qgbd$1@dont-email.me...
> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in
> news:vaj4q7$2lgg9$6@dont-email.me:
>
>> In news:vagrpk$2a8pc$1@dont-email.me, Baxter
>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>
>>> "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote in
>>> news:vag70e$23aco$4@dont-email.me:
>>>> In news:vag115$229qo$8@dont-email.me, Baxter
>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:66cb751b$1$212411 $882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>>>>>> In article <vafqk3$210a8$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>> On 8/20/24 12:49 AM, max headroom wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> You think all the CMSes weren't notified by their commander?
>>
>>>>>>> What you're trying to get people to believe is that a CSM was
>>>>>>> notified by DA HQ of the deployment *before* the Unit Commander
>>>>>>> was notified.
>>
>>>>>>> Are you really sure that that's the hill you want to die on?
>>
>>>>>> Walz lied.
>>
>>>>> No he did not...
>>
>>>> Yeah, he did.
>>
>>>> https://freebeacon.com/democrats/for-tim-walz-a-pattern-of-prevaricat
>>>> io ns-stretches-back-almost-two-decades/
>>
>>> LOL, and as reference you cite a conservaturd site...
>>
>> Shoot the messenger.
>
> Some messengers are known liars - like this one
>>
>>> ... specializing in propaganda lies.
>>
>> Post your rebuttals.
>>
> Don't need a rebuttle - YOU need to post a better source for YOUR claim.

Max supported his claim and Baxter has failed to refute it or present any
counter evidence.

Point to Max.