Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:

>> >Who among us said a crazy person should have a gun?
>>
>> It's about ones who already *do* have gun(s), whether they should have
>> "due process" while they shoot someone.
>
>and?
>
>Take them away.

So you agree with Trump, and not Klaus, good, I'm with you.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:01:19 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But bat shit far right - "mass deportations!"
>>>"Kill women who get abortions!" "Dictator from Day
>>>One!" Government confiscations of guns!" - are OK
>>>with you?
>>
>>I have no reason to trust Trump's agenda more than his record, he was
>>an irresponsible Republican, choosing deficit over taxation. If we're
>>to have a dictator whose first term emulated Reagan, I object, and I
>>think some millions agree with me.
>
>This isn't going to be the usual election with Republicans voting Republican, Democrats
>voting Democrat, and both parties fighting for that slim cut of votes in the middle.
>
>Trump can't even be assured of taking the entire GOP base. Too many Republicans are
>speaking out against him - a thing unheard of in American politics - to be assured of
>getting all those votes.
>
>Some may stay home, which will hurt the down ballot, some will cross over for President
>but continue to vote red down ballot and others will switch not only for President, but
>down ballot as well to punish the party for the embarrassment of running such an asshole
>on a Republican ticket.
>
>We all know what happens when one party turns out its base effectively while the other's
>stays home.

Your analysis is valid, I believe. Trump has to be able to overcome
the larger base we have, as 2020 showed, some people will be upset
over the Middle East situation, but why would they think, effectively,
helping Trump would improve that? Trump was radically pro-Israel.
Voting third party misses that Trump would make the situation worse,
if he gets back in.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:

>Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >Who among us said a crazy person should have a gun?
>>>
>>> It's about ones who already *do* have gun(s), whether they should have
>>> "due process" while they shoot someone.
>>
>>and?
>>
>>Take them away.
>
>
>So you agree with Trump, and not Klaus, good, I'm with you.

No American agrees there should be no due process.

On Aug 21, 2024 at 11:03:42 AM MST, "Joel" wrote
<fuaccj5ff541r8f7se3m1netgplagquvcj@4ax.com>:

> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <r4hacjdm2hlru8udsmhcachttv8audkvfc@4ax.com>,
>> joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>>> Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "We need guns to protect ourselves from
>>>> jack-booted feds trying to disarm us. Unless
>>>> they were sent by Trump"
>>>
>>> Yeah, he's the pro-police, law-and-order candidate, who's also against
>>> the "deep state", what a dumb bunch of bullshit. What kind of
>>> imbecile beLIEves this clown? Give me a fuckin' break, the botnet is
>>> pathetic, just suckers, accepting anything the guy says and does, no
>>> matter how retarded.
>>
>> So you are against the police and law and order?
>
>
> No, and neither is Harris and Walz, Trump doesn't get to claim
> ownership of that while *he* is the one having multiple felony cases
> against him.

Who do you trust on law and order, a carrier prosecutor or a convicted felon.
I mean, really, why is this even a question? LOL! If Trump owned his past
illegal behavior and used it to learn MAYBE they would have an argument, but
he always plays victim.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:
>[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>>Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >Who among us said a crazy person should have a gun?
>>>>
>>>> It's about ones who already *do* have gun(s), whether they should have
>>>> "due process" while they shoot someone.
>>>
>>>and?
>>>
>>>Take them away.
>>
>>So you agree with Trump, and not Klaus, good, I'm with you.
>
>No American agrees there should be no due process.

It's one thing if they appeal and show they aren't violent, and get
their guns back, but if there's a reasonable suspicion of violent
intent, with a gun owner, law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
"due process", while the guns are still there to be shot at someone.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

In article <fuaccj5ff541r8f7se3m1netgplagquvcj@4ax.com>,
joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>
> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <r4hacjdm2hlru8udsmhcachttv8audkvfc@4ax.com>,
> >joelcrump@gmail.com says...
> >> Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "We need guns to protect ourselves from
> >> >jack-booted feds trying to disarm us. Unless
> >> >they were sent by Trump"
> >>
> >> Yeah, he's the pro-police, law-and-order candidate, who's also against
> >> the "deep state", what a dumb bunch of bullshit. What kind of
> >> imbecile beLIEves this clown? Give me a fuckin' break, the botnet is
> >> pathetic, just suckers, accepting anything the guy says and does, no
> >> matter how retarded.
> >
> >So you are against the police and law and order?
>
>
> No, and neither is Harris and Walz, Trump doesn't get to claim
> ownership of that while *he* is the one having multiple felony cases
> against him.

He can claim whatever he wants. It wasn't the police that set him up.

In article <k4bccjt8d15g8lv6hv2oq0gpvkfk8erfhn@4ax.com>,
joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>
> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Who among us said a crazy person should have a gun?
> >>
> >> It's about ones who already *do* have gun(s), whether they should have
> >> "due process" while they shoot someone.
> >
> >and?
> >
> >Take them away.
>
>
> So you agree with Trump, and not Klaus, good, I'm with you.

I never said crazy people should have guns. But you sure swished away
from the topic and twisted it around.

In article <aaiccjt4ugtqv8uurlbq6sld1bbsn6afe8@4ax.com>,
joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
> >>Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> >Who among us said a crazy person should have a gun?
> >>>>
> >>>> It's about ones who already *do* have gun(s), whether they should have
> >>>> "due process" while they shoot someone.
> >>>
> >>>and?
> >>>
> >>>Take them away.
> >>
> >>So you agree with Trump, and not Klaus, good, I'm with you.
> >
> >No American agrees there should be no due process.
>
>
> It's one thing if they appeal and show they aren't violent, and get
> their guns back, but if there's a reasonable suspicion of violent
> intent, with a gun owner, law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
> "due process", while the guns are still there to be shot at someone.

Only if he/she is a threat. I don't like the red light law because your
neighbor can decide he doesn't like you and make a call.

In article <50eccj1fpek2tlb8dmd3t404caoq7ab61n@4ax.com>,
joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>
> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:01:19 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But bat shit far right - "mass deportations!"
> >>>"Kill women who get abortions!" "Dictator from Day
> >>>One!" Government confiscations of guns!" - are OK
> >>>with you?
> >>
> >>I have no reason to trust Trump's agenda more than his record, he was
> >>an irresponsible Republican, choosing deficit over taxation. If we're
> >>to have a dictator whose first term emulated Reagan, I object, and I
> >>think some millions agree with me.
> >
> >This isn't going to be the usual election with Republicans voting Republican, Democrats
> >voting Democrat, and both parties fighting for that slim cut of votes in the middle.
> >
> >Trump can't even be assured of taking the entire GOP base. Too many Republicans are
> >speaking out against him - a thing unheard of in American politics - to be assured of
> >getting all those votes.
> >
> >Some may stay home, which will hurt the down ballot, some will cross over for President
> >but continue to vote red down ballot and others will switch not only for President, but
> >down ballot as well to punish the party for the embarrassment of running such an asshole
> >on a Republican ticket.
> >
> >We all know what happens when one party turns out its base effectively while the other's
> >stays home.
>
>
> Your analysis is valid, I believe. Trump has to be able to overcome
> the larger base we have, as 2020 showed,

You mean the fake ballots?

some people will be upset
> over the Middle East situation, but why would they think, effectively,
> helping Trump would improve that? Trump was radically pro-Israel.
> Voting third party misses that Trump would make the situation worse,
> if he gets back in.

In article <66c63e78$0$1247424$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Aug 21, 2024 at 11:03:42 AM MST, "Joel" wrote
> <fuaccj5ff541r8f7se3m1netgplagquvcj@4ax.com>:
>
> > Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article <r4hacjdm2hlru8udsmhcachttv8audkvfc@4ax.com>,
> >> joelcrump@gmail.com says...
> >>> Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "We need guns to protect ourselves from
> >>>> jack-booted feds trying to disarm us. Unless
> >>>> they were sent by Trump"
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, he's the pro-police, law-and-order candidate, who's also against
> >>> the "deep state", what a dumb bunch of bullshit. What kind of
> >>> imbecile beLIEves this clown? Give me a fuckin' break, the botnet is
> >>> pathetic, just suckers, accepting anything the guy says and does, no
> >>> matter how retarded.
> >>
> >> So you are against the police and law and order?
> >
> >
> > No, and neither is Harris and Walz, Trump doesn't get to claim
> > ownership of that while *he* is the one having multiple felony cases
> > against him.
>
> Who do you trust on law and order, a carrier prosecutor or a convicted felon.
> I mean, really, why is this even a question? LOL! If Trump owned his past
> illegal behavior and used it to learn MAYBE they would have an argument, but
> he always plays victim.

Like you. So you think all prosecutors are honest? I remember one in
Georgia.

On Aug 21, 2024 at 3:05:01 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<66c6648d$0$1895508$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <50eccj1fpek2tlb8dmd3t404caoq7ab61n@4ax.com>,
> joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:01:19 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But bat shit far right - "mass deportations!"
>>>>> "Kill women who get abortions!" "Dictator from Day
>>>>> One!" Government confiscations of guns!" - are OK
>>>>> with you?
>>>>
>>>> I have no reason to trust Trump's agenda more than his record, he was
>>>> an irresponsible Republican, choosing deficit over taxation. If we're
>>>> to have a dictator whose first term emulated Reagan, I object, and I
>>>> think some millions agree with me.
>>>
>>> This isn't going to be the usual election with Republicans voting
>>> Republican, Democrats
>>> voting Democrat, and both parties fighting for that slim cut of votes in the
>>> middle.
>>>
>>> Trump can't even be assured of taking the entire GOP base. Too many
>>> Republicans are
>>> speaking out against him - a thing unheard of in American politics - to be
>>> assured of
>>> getting all those votes.
>>>
>>> Some may stay home, which will hurt the down ballot, some will cross over
>>> for President
>>> but continue to vote red down ballot and others will switch not only for
>>> President, but
>>> down ballot as well to punish the party for the embarrassment of running
>>> such an asshole
>>> on a Republican ticket.
>>>
>>> We all know what happens when one party turns out its base effectively while
>>> the other's
>>> stays home.
>>
>>
>> Your analysis is valid, I believe. Trump has to be able to overcome
>> the larger base we have, as 2020 showed,
>
> You mean the fake ballots?

What about you makes you such a poor loser?
>
>
> some people will be upset
>> over the Middle East situation, but why would they think, effectively,
>> helping Trump would improve that? Trump was radically pro-Israel.
>> Voting third party misses that Trump would make the situation worse,
>> if he gets back in.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Aug 21, 2024 at 3:04:20 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<66c66465$0$1895509$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <aaiccjt4ugtqv8uurlbq6sld1bbsn6afe8@4ax.com>,
> joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> [Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Who among us said a crazy person should have a gun?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's about ones who already *do* have gun(s), whether they should have
>>>>>> "due process" while they shoot someone.
>>>>>
>>>>> and?
>>>>>
>>>>> Take them away.
>>>>
>>>> So you agree with Trump, and not Klaus, good, I'm with you.
>>>
>>> No American agrees there should be no due process.
>>
>>
>> It's one thing if they appeal and show they aren't violent, and get
>> their guns back, but if there's a reasonable suspicion of violent
>> intent, with a gun owner, law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>> "due process", while the guns are still there to be shot at someone.
>
> Only if he/she is a threat. I don't like the red light law because your
> neighbor can decide he doesn't like you and make a call.

You fear you will come across as not stable enough. Understandable in your
case.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>In article <aaiccjt4ugtqv8uurlbq6sld1bbsn6afe8@4ax.com>,
>joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>> >>Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> >Who among us said a crazy person should have a gun?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's about ones who already *do* have gun(s), whether they should have
>> >>>> "due process" while they shoot someone.
>> >>>
>> >>>and?
>> >>>
>> >>>Take them away.
>> >>
>> >>So you agree with Trump, and not Klaus, good, I'm with you.
>> >
>> >No American agrees there should be no due process.
>>
>> It's one thing if they appeal and show they aren't violent, and get
>> their guns back, but if there's a reasonable suspicion of violent
>> intent, with a gun owner, law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>> "due process", while the guns are still there to be shot at someone.
>
>Only if he/she is a threat. I don't like the red light law because your
>neighbor can decide he doesn't like you and make a call.

But it's not that simple, if the police investigate the claim, and
find it false, the person won't have their gun taken. The question
boils down to whether you trust the police to do this. If not them,
who? This "due process" BS is just a way of saying everyone should
have guns, even violent people.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:

>> Trump has to be able to overcome
>> the larger base we have, as 2020 showed,
>
>You mean the fake ballots?

No, I mean the real ballots that show the left is larger, 81 to 74
million. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, too, you might recall.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:

>law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>"due process",

And Joel exposes himself as the totalitarian prick that he is.

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>>"due process",
>
>And Joel exposes himself as the totalitarian prick that he is.

No, you expose yourself as an NRA asshole, wanting to protect violent
gun owners. Fuck your guns. Fuck violence. You're an ignorant,
redneck CRACKER.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

In article <66c66885$0$3620717$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Aug 21, 2024 at 3:04:20 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <66c66465$0$1895509$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> > In article <aaiccjt4ugtqv8uurlbq6sld1bbsn6afe8@4ax.com>,
> > joelcrump@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> [Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
> >>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Who among us said a crazy person should have a gun?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's about ones who already *do* have gun(s), whether they should have
> >>>>>> "due process" while they shoot someone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Take them away.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you agree with Trump, and not Klaus, good, I'm with you.
> >>>
> >>> No American agrees there should be no due process.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's one thing if they appeal and show they aren't violent, and get
> >> their guns back, but if there's a reasonable suspicion of violent
> >> intent, with a gun owner, law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
> >> "due process", while the guns are still there to be shot at someone.
> >
> > Only if he/she is a threat. I don't like the red light law because your
> > neighbor can decide he doesn't like you and make a call.
>
> You fear you will come across as not stable enough. Understandable in your
> case.

Well you can't refute so I guess I win this right?

[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>>>"due process",
>>
>>And Joel exposes himself as the totalitarian prick that he is.
>
>
>No,

Yes. You're just another totalitarian goon who thinks he'll get a good
job as a concentration camp guard.

> you expose yourself as an NRA asshole, wanting to protect violent
>gun owners. Fuck your guns. Fuck violence. You're an ignorant,
>redneck CRACKER.

ROFLMAO

You forgot ARMED redneck cracker. And you aren't.

Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 21, 2024 at 3:04:20?PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
><66c66465$0$1895509$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>> In article <aaiccjt4ugtqv8uurlbq6sld1bbsn6afe8@4ax.com>,
>> joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No American agrees there should be no due process.
>>>
>>> It's one thing if they appeal and show they aren't violent, and get
>>> their guns back, but if there's a reasonable suspicion of violent
>>> intent, with a gun owner, law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>>> "due process", while the guns are still there to be shot at someone.
>>
>> Only if he/she is a threat. I don't like the red light law because your
>> neighbor can decide he doesn't like you and make a call.
>
>You fear you will come across as not stable enough. Understandable in your
>case.

ROFL!

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>>>>"due process",
>>>
>>>And Joel exposes himself as the totalitarian prick that he is.
>>
>>No,
>
>Yes. You're just another totalitarian goon who thinks he'll get a good
>job as a concentration camp guard.

I'm not against you having guns if they're treated with the proper
respect - but the police should be empowered to judge whether you're
doing so.

>> you expose yourself as an NRA asshole, wanting to protect violent
>>gun owners. Fuck your guns. Fuck violence. You're an ignorant,
>>redneck CRACKER.
>
>ROFLMAO
>
>You forgot ARMED redneck cracker. And you aren't.

I'm not qualified to own a gun, I'm a diagnosed schizophrenic who's
had a suicide attempt some time ago. You are free to have your guns,
as far as I'm concerned. But not when you are a danger to yourself or
others, that's the fucking point. There's no "due process" that can
stop a bullet.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>>>>>"due process",
>>>>
>>>>And Joel exposes himself as the totalitarian prick that he is.
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>>Yes. You're just another totalitarian goon who thinks he'll get a good
>>job as a concentration camp guard.
>
>
>I'm not against you having guns if they're treated with the proper
>respect - but the police should be empowered to judge whether you're
>doing so.

Oh, so now you want the POLICE to be judges!

ROFLMAO

You totalitarian freak.

>>> you expose yourself as an NRA asshole, wanting to protect violent
>>>gun owners. Fuck your guns. Fuck violence. You're an ignorant,
>>>redneck CRACKER.
>>
>>ROFLMAO
>>
>>You forgot ARMED redneck cracker. And you aren't.
>
>
>I'm not qualified to own a gun, I'm a diagnosed schizophrenic who's
>had a suicide attempt some time ago.

Too bad. Your failure, I mean.

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>> you expose yourself as an NRA asshole, wanting to protect violent
>>>>gun owners. Fuck your guns. Fuck violence. You're an ignorant,
>>>>redneck CRACKER.
>>>
>>>ROFLMAO
>>>
>>>You forgot ARMED redneck cracker. And you aren't.
>>
>>I'm not qualified to own a gun, I'm a diagnosed schizophrenic who's
>>had a suicide attempt some time ago.
>
>Too bad. Your failure, I mean.

Speaking of "failure", you "failed" to respond to the part of that you
snipped. You're a fuckface redneck cracker, a gun-toting psycho.
Congrats on being a piece of human garbage.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Aug 21, 2024 at 4:27:08 PM MST, "Joel" wrote
<7stccj1u4urdrjaf7c7busta8a5tj50lvt@4ax.com>:

> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 2024 at 3:04:20?PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <66c66465$0$1895509$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>> In article <aaiccjt4ugtqv8uurlbq6sld1bbsn6afe8@4ax.com>,
>>> joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No American agrees there should be no due process.
>>>>
>>>> It's one thing if they appeal and show they aren't violent, and get
>>>> their guns back, but if there's a reasonable suspicion of violent
>>>> intent, with a gun owner, law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>>>> "due process", while the guns are still there to be shot at someone.
>>>
>>> Only if he/she is a threat. I don't like the red light law because your
>>> neighbor can decide he doesn't like you and make a call.
>>
>> You fear you will come across as not stable enough. Understandable in your
>> case.
>
>
> ROFL!

They out themselves.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Aug 21, 2024 at 4:21:23 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<66c6766b$0$2756$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <66c66885$0$3620717$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2024 at 3:04:20 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <66c66465$0$1895509$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <aaiccjt4ugtqv8uurlbq6sld1bbsn6afe8@4ax.com>,
>>> joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [Default] Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> typed:
>>>>>> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who among us said a crazy person should have a gun?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's about ones who already *do* have gun(s), whether they should have
>>>>>>>> "due process" while they shoot someone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take them away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree with Trump, and not Klaus, good, I'm with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> No American agrees there should be no due process.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's one thing if they appeal and show they aren't violent, and get
>>>> their guns back, but if there's a reasonable suspicion of violent
>>>> intent, with a gun owner, law enforcement shouldn't be burdened with
>>>> "due process", while the guns are still there to be shot at someone.
>>>
>>> Only if he/she is a threat. I don't like the red light law because your
>>> neighbor can decide he doesn't like you and make a call.
>>
>> You fear you will come across as not stable enough. Understandable in your
>> case.
>
> Well you can't refute so I guess I win this right?

I agree you might not come across as stable enough.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <se0dcjtfbabbv576sb2e1ogi7vds53691t@4ax.com>,
joelcrump@gmail.com says...
>
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>> you expose yourself as an NRA asshole, wanting to protect violent
> >>>>gun owners. Fuck your guns. Fuck violence. You're an ignorant,
> >>>>redneck CRACKER.
> >>>
> >>>ROFLMAO
> >>>
> >>>You forgot ARMED redneck cracker. And you aren't.
> >>
> >>I'm not qualified to own a gun, I'm a diagnosed schizophrenic who's
> >>had a suicide attempt some time ago.
> >
> >Too bad. Your failure, I mean.
>
>
> Speaking of "failure", you "failed" to respond to the part of that you
> snipped. You're a fuckface redneck cracker, a gun-toting psycho.
> Congrats on being a piece of human garbage.

And away he runs again.