Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Jopie to All on Thu Sep 11 2025 05:04 am

I think it's completely wrong that he was murdered. Freedom of speech
is a great asset. He used and abused that freedom, and that's okay.
He shouldn't have been murdered. That's truly wrong.

But that he died by a firearm... Well, that's the price of the Second

there's the but. he died and you have a huge hardon because of it.

i have news for you. criminals can get ahold of guns even if they outlawed. there is nothing ironic about him being for gun rights and dying of a gun.

shame on you. there's 2 children that have to go without a father now.

there is no karma here. he did not deserve to be murdered.

just remember this, even a worm will turn. do you want it to get to the point where we murder eachother because of ideas? if no, you should stop your ugly celebrating.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Mickey on Fri Sep 12 2025 07:01 am

Mickey wrote to Jopie <=-

An entertainer that used tricks to fool his debatees? I watched
him daily and was very intriqued with his conversations
and come-backs. I will miss him. If you feel it was errrr ok that
he was shot, you are the problem with this world.

Most of the comments I've seen call the violence deplorable
(especially with his family watching) but for someone who recently
said that some people will need to die to preserve the second
amendment, the irony seems overwhelming.

it's funny how you liberals consider it ironic. as if gun control could
stop an assassination.

you people showed your true selves during covid and you're doing it now. fucking sick.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

just remember this, even a worm will turn. do you want it to get to the point where we murder eachother because of ideas? if no, you should stop your ugly celebrating.

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future
consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.


* SLMR 2.1a * My wife made me join a bridge club...I jump next week.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Fri Sep 12 2025 10:07 am

just remember this, even a worm will turn. do you want it
to get to the point where we murder eachother because of ideas?
if no, you should stop your ugly celebrating.

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

it's sad. i see on fb some old friends are shooting videos laughing about
it. these are people who claim to love god and think we should all love eachother.

of course you see everywhere the morons are saying 'ironic' all the time.
it's not ironic.

we really have no hope as a people. we basically need a civil war at this point. at work i don't talk politics and personally i dont claim any political party. I want out of all of it.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Most of the comments I've seen call the violence deplorable (especially with his family watching) but for someone who recently said that some people
will need to die to preserve the second amendment, the irony seems overwhelming.

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which, to
me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.


* SLMR 2.1a * I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.

There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.

I don't see the conservatives taking part in this. Regardless of how insane the left has become, I don't think we'll play ball... we didn't riot in the streets, we didn't burn down our cities and we'll never use violence towards those we don't agree with - for me, it shows me more and more why I'm on the right side.

I was center-left for the longest time. I voted for Obama. These last 9 years have pushed me farther and farther right of center...

It was nice hearing from Erika tonight; I hope she becomes the lioness and grows Turning Point into something larger than Charlie - I think she will.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2024/05/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbs>>>20ForBeers.com:1337

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Fri Sep 12 2025 06:36 pm

Most of the comments I've seen call the violence
deplorable (especially with his family watching) but for someone
who recently said that some people will need to die to preserve
the second amendment, the irony seems overwhelming.

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally
which, to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment
since the dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin
with.

i'm sure poindexter finds it funny and ironic that those kids in minnesota were killed in a church by a trans. why didn't god save them, right?
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: paulie420 to hollowone on Fri Sep 12 2025 07:43 pm

There are a lot of people who seem to be
"celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its
disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE
of their party towards the center... or further.

i just see more deaths and more people at each other's throats in the future.

no republicans were cheering when those state reps in minnesota were
attacked.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/vance-boelter-indicted-murders-melissa-and- mark-hortman-shootings-john-and-yvette-0

liberals are off the rails deranged. they are not the good guys, they are not the people for the everyday man. they are blood thirsty and deranged.

this kirk guy gets murdered and people are laughing and calling him a nazi
and saying there should be more killings.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to paulie420 on Fri Sep 12 2025 10:08 pm

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: paulie420 to hollowone on Fri Sep 12 2025 07:43 pm

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating,"
or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others f their ideas.

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its
disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE
of their party towards the center... or further.

i just see more deaths and more people at each other's throats
in the future.

no republicans were cheering when those state reps in minnesota
were attacked.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/vance-boelter-indicted-mu rders-melissa-and- mark-hortman-shootings-john-and-yvette-0

here's my reddit post.
i expect to have like 100 downvotes.
they were calling kirk a nazi,etc

https://i.imgur.com/obfxJoi.png
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to all on Fri Sep 12 2025 11:34 pm

here's my reddit post.
i expect to have like 100 downvotes.
they were calling kirk a nazi,etc

https://i.imgur.com/obfxJoi.png

"Reddit is a most wretched hive of scum and villainy." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

i'm sure poindexter finds it funny and ironic that those kids in minnesota were killed in a church by a trans. why didn't god save them, right?

I hadn't heard about that one yet. ;(


* SLMR 2.1a * "I'm sick! I ought to be home in bed with a nurse."
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.

I suspect that the people "celebrating" or poking fun at recent events are
not "liberals" but are outright far-leftists. "Classic" liberals, IMHO,
are center-left... they want more social reforms but some might also be 2A and/or pro-law enforcement and/or other things that would upset someone to
the left of them.

There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.

I don't see the conservatives taking part in this. Regardless of how insane th
left has become, I don't think we'll play ball... we didn't riot in the streets,
we didn't burn down our cities and we'll never use violence towards
those we don't agree with - for me, it shows me more and more why I'm on the right side.

See 1/6/2021. If you get too many together in a group when they are upset, they will become violent and riot. Before that date, you could say the
above and be correct. Now you cannot, at least not about the die-hard
MAGAs who are invested enough that they'd attend a losers rally in DC on
the same day the Election results are being made official.

Those of us who are center-right, I agree with your statement. We will defend ourselves, but we are not going to do dumbass things unprovoked.


* SLMR 2.1a * Yes, you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really care.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Sat Sep 13 2025 10:21 am

i'm sure poindexter finds it funny and ironic that those
kids in minnesota were killed in a church by a trans. why didn't
god save them, right?

I hadn't heard about that one yet. ;(

it's tragic. kids were killed on their first day of school.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0lyny7ydo

I'm surprised you didnt hear about it. a trans man attacked a church, killed 2 kids and injured 17.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to PAULIE420 on Sat Sep 13 2025 10:21 am

I suspect that the people "celebrating" or poking fun at recent
events are not "liberals" but are outright far-leftists.
"Classic" liberals, IMHO, are center-left... they want more social
reforms but some might also be 2A and/or pro-law enforcement
and/or other things that would upset someone to the left of them.

There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.

those 'center left' ones might not be talking but they are
happy it happened. i know a lot that claim to be moderate or progressive or whatever but they are happy he was murdered.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Dumas Walker wrote to MRO <=-

just remember this, even a worm will turn. do you want it to get to the

point

where we murder eachother because of ideas? if no, you should stop your ugly celebrating.

There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.

Yeah - that's one of the good things I think he did - promote
discussion. There are videos showing him defending the right
of someone that disagrees to speak, becasue that's the point -
not the shouting, but the communication.



... Direct from the Ministry of Silly Walks
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

Does it make a material difference to his stance?

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which,
to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the
dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.

The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns. It was
also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.


--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

paulie420 wrote to hollowone <=-

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years.
Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social
networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

Like a bell curve, most of the population lies under the center with 1
standard deviation to the right or the left. They both generally think
murder is wrong, both have similar views, more or less, regarding
government reach, taxation and rights - but lean to the left or the
right.

The internet gives the extreme view an amplified platform - the bell
curve has become a W shape.

But, the reality is that most people don't want violence in their
streets, want health care to be affordable, want fair taxation,
representation in government, working roads and infrastructure, and to
be able to pass on a better way of life to their kids. That seems
pretty reasonable to the center of either side.

There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.

I don't see the conservatives taking part in this. Regardless of how insane the left has become, I don't think we'll play ball... we didn't riot in the streets, we didn't burn down our cities and we'll never use violence towards those we don't agree with - for me, it shows me more
and more why I'm on the right side.

I was center-left for the longest time. I voted for Obama. These last 9 years have pushed me farther and farther right of center...

It was nice hearing from Erika tonight; I hope she becomes the lioness
and grows Turning Point into something larger than Charlie - I think
she will.

|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2024/05/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: 2o fOr beeRS bbs>>>20ForBeers.com:1337

--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Dumas Walker on Sun Sep 14 2025 09:10 am

The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns. It was
also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.

there you are parroting typical liberal bullshit.

https://tinyurl.com/automatic1776

One common gun control argument is that America's Founding Fathers could not have imagined the repeating "assault weapons" of today. But when the Second Amendment was written in 1791, numerous guns already existed that were
capable of far faster firing rates than the typical muzzle-loading flintlocks of the era.


Single shot muskets were far from the only guns in 1791 available to the public.
America's Founding Fathers saw natural rights as timeless and viewed the rights of a free people as existing regardless of the medium in which they were exercised. This included the right to bear arms as a means to prevent a government monopoly of force, so advancements in firearms technology do not change the intention of the Second Amendment.

threebarrel-hand-cannonhandgonne
Likely originating from China or nearby in East Asia, this type of
"handgonne" is an example of early multi-shot portable firearms design.

Still, the question of which assault weapons the Founding Fathers knew about is a fascinating and often misrepresented topic, so let's take a look at some of the repeating rifles, volley guns, and fast loading firearms that were available during their lifetimes.


Matchlock and wheelock revolvers date to the 16th century, and flintlock revolvers were well-known repeating gun designs when the 2nd Amendment was written.
The Chelembrom Repeating Flintlock
While it's true that the average flintlock in 1776 had to be reloaded after every shot, the concept of repeating guns predates both the Second Amendment and the American Revolution by several centuries. A variety of multi-shot firearms were available well before the United States declared independence. Among the most notable assault weapon designs that the Founding Fathers may have known about were the Kalthoff breech-loading mechanisms and the
Lorenzoni family of repeating flintlocks.

Chelembrom-Magazine-Repeating-Flintlock-1
A Chelembrom magazine repeating flintlock from 1781, a decade before the 2nd amendment was written.

Variants of the Lorenzoni repeating system, an invention from 1688, were one of several types of rapid-fire guns being produced in 1791. One of the finest and rarest examples is the Chelembrom magazine repeating flintlock. Thought
to be the creation of a French gunmaker working in India, few of these innovative and complex Chelembrom guns survive to the present day.

Though employed primarily as hunting weapons, at least one of these repeaters may have been used on the battlefield. As noted by the Royal Collection Trust in the United Kingdom, at least one of these flintlock magazine guns was acquired by the nemesis of Colonial America, King George III himself.

Chelembrom-Magazine-Repeating-Flintlock-1781
The Chelembrom magazine repeating flintlock, the 18th Century's AR-15.

Carrying 20 rounds, the Chelembron magazine-fed repeaters are flintlock predecessors to the famous Henry repeating rifle but predates the Henry by nearly 200 years. In Royal Sporting Guns at Windsor, the complicated
operation of this system is described.

With the muzzle pointing upwards the barrel and its magazines are turned in a clockwise direction. This movement leads to the following chain of events. A charge of powder is measured into the dropping tube and a small portion is deposited in the priming pan which is then closed and the lock cocked. The rest of the powder falls into a chamber in the brass receiver. At the same time a bullet is released and drops into a covered trough. The barrel is
moved further round until it is opposite the bullet, which is thrust upwards into the barrel by a plunger or spring. The gun is then reversed and the barrel assembly turned back to its original position. The mouth of the barrel with its seated bullet then lies opposite a chamber full of powder.
Because the powder magazine is away from the point of ignition, the system is fairly safe compared to other repeating flintlock designs. Though far more complicated to manufacture than the typical guns of the 18th century, Chelembron repeating flintlocks offered a significantly higher firing rate when they were properly maintained and operated.

The Lorenzoni Repeating Flintlock
Designed in 1688 by Michele Lorenzoni, an Italian gunmaker in Florence, the Lorenzoni repeating flintlock was leagues ahead of its time. Among the most well-known multi-shot guns that existed when the 2nd Amendment was written, the Lorenzoni system, like the Chelembrom style featured above, was offered
in both pistol and long gun variants that could be cocked and primed in a single operation.

pair-of-silvermounted-lorenzoniberselli-system-flintlock-pistols
A pair of Lorenzoni flintlocks, another rapid-fire "assault weapon" of the era.

The first Lorenzoni-style repeater that appeared in the American Colonies was manufactured by London gunsmith John Cookston. A later smith, John Shaw, relocated to Boston in 1750 and began producing and selling several repeating flintlock variations for the American market that ranged from seven to twelve shot magazines. Billed as John Shaw's Cookson Volitional Repeaters, Shaw advertised his guns in the Boston Gazette, the most widely read newspaper in 18th Century America, making many early Americans very much aware of high capacity repeating firearms.

Lorenzoni-Type-Lever-Action-Repeating-Flintlock-Rifle
A rare Lorenzoni type lever action repeating flintlock rifle, another well-known repeating gun in 1791.

The Girandoni Repeating Air Rifle
Also predating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the 1779 Girandoni repeating air rifle used air reservoirs instead of gunpowder to fire up to 22 rounds per minute. A smokeless, breech-loaded, magazine-fed, comparatively quiet gun that was lethal up to 150 yards, it's no wonder that Thomas Jefferson later had one sent along with Lewis and Clark on their historic
1803 expedition to explore the American West.

lewis-and-clark-air-gun-model
The Girandoni air rifle, the "scary black rifle" of its day. Numerous styles of airguns existed when the 2nd amendment was written. This extremely rare Austrian military Girardoni repeating air rifle example is of the exact kind believed to have been carried on the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

The Girandoni repeating air rifle had already been in service with the Austrian army for over a decade when the Second Amendment was written. Numerous sporting variations were also manufactured, including this lightweight example that was almost certainly intended for civilian use.

If the iron air reservoirs weren't so difficult to produce with the
technology of the period, and Bartolomeo Girandoni and his competitors hadn't kept the details of their inventions so guarded, the air rifle may have had a more dramatic impact on the evolution of firearms.


Air guns are but a single example of repeating guns that existed when the 2nd amendment was written.
The Belton Fusil and Superposed Flintlocks
The Belton "Roman candle" fusil is the first known repeating firearm invented in American. Joseph Belton's repeating fusil design employed superimposed loads that fired in succession after a single pull of the trigger using a chained charge much like a Roman candle. Joseph Belton, an inventor and gunsmith from Benjamin Franklin's hometown of Philadelphia, not only produced his innovative firearm for the public, he petitioned the Continental Congress during the American Revolution in hopes of a largescale military contract.

Belton-Style-Repeating-Four-Shot-Flintlock-Pistol
The Belton repeater, a high capacity assault flintlock studied by the Continental Army.

In 1776, Belton wrote to Congress claiming he'd designed a way to make a musket discharge up to eight rounds in three seconds. Benjamin Franklin wrote to George Washington in support of the idea, and Washington initially commissioned 100 of Belton's rapid-fire muskets for the Continental Army.

A disagreement over money ultimately canceled the proposal, as Belton was convinced his invention was worth a far higher sum than the fledging American government could afford. Belton continued to sell his guns to the public, and his inquires with the Continental Congress have left a detailed written account of how America's founders not only knew about repeating weapon technology but debated financing its mass production.

Ellis-Jennings-Repeating-Flintlock-Rifle
The Ellis-Jennings repeating rifle, a successor to the Belton style "Roman candle" repeater.

Belton's design was promising, and three decades after the ratification of
the Bill of Rights, during the administration of Founding Father James
Monroe, a wealthier United States government gave the technology a second look. The Ellis-Jennings repeating rifle was created in variations that could fire up to ten shots before reloading. Over 500 Ellis-Jennings four-shot sliding lock repeaters were manufactured under contract with the U.S. government at the cost of $13,090, a substantial purchase for the period that demonstrated confidence in the technology.

The Chambers Swivel Gun: An Early American Flintlock Machine Gun
In late 1812, Revolutionary War veteran Joseph G. Chambers approached the Department of War in Washington D.C. in regard to his repeating flintlock rifle and pistol technology, referring to his inventions as "machine guns." Like the Belton, the Chambers' design was based on a single trigger pull setting off a succession of chained charges in sequence. War Secretary John Armstrong was skeptical.

Chambers-flintlock-machine-gun
Only two examples of U.S. Navy Repeating Swivels remain today. The Chambers gun could fire over 200 rounds in minutes. The image above is a reproduction.

Secretary of the Navy William Jones proved more receptive to the Chambers flintlock machine gun and manufactured and ordered 10 swivel guns using the design, as well as 100 muskets converted into Chambers repeaters. Many additional orders soon followed.

On May 27th of 1814, Secretary Jones wrote to Commodore Isaac Chauncey, informing him that he'd forwarded "a number of the repeating Swivels Muskets and Pistols, with prepared ammunition and persons acquainted with the art of preparing the ammunition and of loading the arms. . . . Two of those swivels in each Top, to be fired in succession upon the decks of your adversary,
would not fail to clear it entirely in five minutes."

Chambers-Flintlock-diagram
A Chambers flintlock diagram displayed at the Belgium Arms Museum at LiŠge.

The Puckle Gun
A unique flintlock machine gun prototype was concieved over 70 years prior to the Second Amendment. Invented by James Puckle in 1718 as an anti-boarding weapon for the British navy, the Puckle Gun used a pre-loaded revolving cylinder that could fire nine shots per minute, more than three times faster than the average period musket.

Puckle-Gun-1
A recreation of the Puckle gun. Photo courtesy of the Institute of Military Technology.

Though in truth it was more of a repeating swivel gun than the early machine gun sometimes portrayed, the Puckle Gun, or "Defense Gun" was designed with both round and square-shaped bullets in mind. The later rounds were intended for Ottoman Turks and their relentless raids along the Mediterranean coastline. Though rejected by the British Navy and never produced beyond a
few prototype pieces, the Puckle Gun was a clever piece of engineering for
the time, and later attempts at tripod mounted repeating guns employed some
of the same concepts.

Nock Volley Guns and the Duckfoot Pistol
Designed by James Wilson in 1779 and mass-produced by British gunsmith Henry Nock, over 650 Nock seven-shot volley guns were shipped to the British Royal Navy during the Revolutionary War.

These distinctive multi-barrel firearms were designed to deliver a tight cluster of shots on a target at greater range and velocity than a shotgun or blunderbuss. Even at a distance, such as firing at the deck of a passing
enemy ship, Nock guns could still hit a small area and do more damage than a single musket shot.

Seven-bore-Nock-Volley-Gun
"Talley ho, lads!" The Nock gun was the ultimate in 18th century home (and naval) defense.

Nock Volley guns were used against the French fleet during the Battle of the Saintes in 1782, a major British victory. They went on to enjoy a brief
period of popularity as sporting guns in the early 19th Century as well, including goose rifles that employed Joseph Manton's patented tubelock firing mechanism.

The Nock gun's menacing look and ability to deliver a more accurate cluster shot has earned them roles in movie and television history including The Alamo, Sharpe, Turn: Washington's Spies, Master & Commander, and more.


The Nock Volley gun. More range than a blunderbuss, more lethal than a
musket.
Based on multi-barrel volley cannons that have existed since the renaissance, the Duckfoot pistol was about riot control and close-quarters combat. The multiple barrels radiated from the single lock resembled a duck's foot,
giving this early "assault weapon" its popular name. Why fire one shot when you can unload four, five, or six simultaneously?

An-Organ-gun-compared-to-a-Duckfoot-pistol
A sketch of the Organ gun (top) and a duck foot pistol (bottom), a miniaturized flintlock version of the same concept with similarly splayed barrels.

The Ferguson Rifle and Early Breechloaders
British Captain Patrick Ferguson loved guns and military strategy, and the breech loading rifle he invented in 1774 was produced just in time to unleash his new weapon on the rebellious American colonists. Breech-loading guns were faster than muzzle-loaders, offered the ability to reload from the prone position without breaking cover, and could be reloaded on the move.

Ferguson's rifle was also more effective in damp conditions compared to other flintlocks of the era, and the bold Scottsman was eager to test his new
weapon on the battlefield in an effort to "counteract the superiority as marksmen of the American backwoodsmen."


Innovative for its time, the Ferguson rifle is considered by many to be the king of early breechloaders.
Ferguson was granted a patent in 1776, and the following year the captain was placed in command of a rifle corps equipped with his secret weapons. 200 Ferguson rifles saw action in the Revolutionary War, including at the Battle of Brandywine and later at the Battle of Kings Mountain, where Ferguson was surrounded and killed. Though four times more costly to produce than a muzzle-loader, Ferguson's rifle demonstrated the clear advantages of the breech-loading design.

Ferguson-patent-breechloading-flintlock-rifle-2
The Ferguson went head-to-head with the American Long Rifle during the Revolution.

In the following decades, other gunmakers experimented with the
breech-loading flintlock, but it wasn't until 1816 that the United States government purchased them in large numbers. President James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", saw the importance of equipping the American military with the latest innovations.

Maine gunmaker John H. Hall furnished 100 of his patented breechloaders, and two years later the Hall Model 1819 became the first breech loader to be regularly adopted by a military, as well as the world's first military rifle designed with completely interchangeable parts. The industrial revolution had arrived, and firearms technology would never look back.


Highly-rare-documented-Hall-Model-1817-breech-loading-flintlock-rifle-with-bay onet-one-of-the-original-100
Highly rare, documented Hall Model 1817 breech-loading flintlock rifle with bayonet, one of the original 100.

Swivel Breech Guns
While one of the more common solutions to getting multiple shots out of a muzzleloading firearm was to simply add another barrel, that generally required also fitting a second lock and getting everything installed in such
a manner that the locks could work independently of one another to fire the appropriate barrels and triggers setup to fire each lock.

LAZARI-COMINAZ-Marked-Italian-Over-Under-Wheellock-Pistol
This "LAZARI COMINAZ" marked Italian over/under Wheellock pistol is an extremely rare and unusual way to get multiple shots of a single firearm. Instead of revolving, this pistol is built essentially like one pistol with a second pistol installed upside down on top.

Good locks weren't cheap, so one popular solution, especially in the
flintlock and percussion eras, was to use two barrels that could be rotated
to switch for a second shot and then one lock. These guns still needed to
have two sets of the priming portions of the mechanisms fitted to the
barrels. Such firearms are called swivel breeches or "wenders" (meaning "turner" in German). They were commonly sporting guns and pistols rather than standard military issue firearms, but some may have been used by military officers.

Engraved-Philippe-De-Sellier-Wender-Flintlock-Sporting-Gun
An early 18th-century "wender" by Philippe De Sellier of Liege (active c. 1676-1740). Note that each barrel has flashpan, frizzen, and frizzen spring.

Matchlock and Flintlock Revolvers
Firearms employing revolving cylinder systems were known since at least the seventieth century and likely well before, as indicated by multiple surviving examples. Matchlock and Flintlock revolvers were an established technology when the 2nd Amendment was written, though metallurgy hadn't caught up with the ambitious design enough to allow wide scale production.

Matchlock-revolver
A four-shot revolving matchlock musket sold by Rock Island Auction back in 2013.

There were also multi-shot flintlocks with revolving chambers. Many of the examples we see today came from the gunmakers of Carlsbad, Bohemia, in the 18th century. The Carlsbad gunsmiths produced some very fine examples of
three and four-shot revolving flintlock pistols and sporting guns, but the system remained rarely used and limited to the armories of the nobility
rather than a weapon adopted widely for the military or common people. The revolving flintlock design is similar to swivel breech guns, but with only
the breech sections of each barrel and then a single barrel they line up with instead.

Three-Shot-Flintlock-Revolving-Sporting-Gun
This 18th-century three-shot revolving flintlock sporting gun uses a similar design as the matchlock before it. Because it is a flintlock, it's more complicated to make than the matchlock but would also be more reliable. To solve the issue of priming for multiple shots, this design has a separate pan and frizzen for each chamber. They are all fired by a single lock.

English inventor Elisha Collier developed one of the most famous designs for
a flintlock revolver in 1814, and thousands were produced for the British Empire in the following years. His business partner, Artemas Wheeler of Concord, Massachusetts, patented the design in America, and Collier began marketing rifle and shotgun versions of his cylinder system to sportsmen and pitching the revolving pistols variants as an option for self-defense. Though Collier's improved design came to market after the Second Amendment, the revolver concept had been produced for centuries prior.

Revolving-rifles-and-shotguns-this-August
The Collier was one of many revolving rifle models invented in the early decades of the 19th century.

Own a Musket for Home Defense: The Second Amendment Meme
Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered
wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball-sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nail the neighbor's dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grapeshot. "Talley ho lads!"

Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. Should've used a Nock Volley gun!
We've all heard a variant of the 2nd Amendment musket meme. It's a fun bit of humor, and certainly a clever way to illustrate how different guns were in 1776 compared to today, but one need only study examples of repeating
firearms available when the American Constitution was written, such as the Girandoni air rifle, the Cookston repeater, and the Belton flintlock to understand the reality was far more complex.

America's Founding Fathers knew of repeating guns, hoped to produce them for Washington's Army, and saw them improve and evolve during their lifetimes.
And yet the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not written with
any exclusion, or mention of single-shot muskets, repeaters, cannons, war ships, or "assault weapons."

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No asterisks, no limitations. Seems pretty clear.

m240-Bravo-Machine-Gun-for-sale
A Fabrique Nationale U.S. M240B "Bravo" belt-fed machine gun, just as the Founding Fathers intended.

Firearms Evolution
Rock Island Auction Company's Premier Auctions are packed with a wealth of scarce historical firearms, rarely seen prototypes, and unusual gun variants that demonstrate just how innovative our forefathers were when it came to new weapon designs. So while the guns of 1776 vs today are clearly not
comparable, and America's Founders probably couldn't envision a Colt AR-15/XM16E1 machine gun, they also wouldn't have been surprised at the continuing evolution of firearms technology that they witnessed numerous
times firsthand.


When it came to producing more firepower in the 16th - 19th centuries, all ideas were on the table. Two notions that appeared in numerous forms were superposed loads and the use of multiple barrels.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: poindexter FORTRAN to paulie420 on Sun Sep 14 2025 09:1

of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years.
Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social
networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

bullshit.

But, the reality is that most people don't want violence in their
streets, want health care to be affordable, want fair taxation, representation in government, working roads and infrastructure, and
to be able to pass on a better way of life to their kids. That seems
pretty reasonable to the center of either side.

you called violent riots "protests" in the past.

im sure you celebrated the murder of charlie kirk and it brought a smile to your face. you probably told your kids about it too.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Dumas Walker <=-

Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

Does it make a material difference to his stance?

Absolutely. It makes a 100% difference.

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which,
to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the
dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.

The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns.

Very true.

It was also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.

Very irrelevant.



... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

poindexter FORTRAN wrote to paulie420 <=-

paulie420 wrote to hollowone <=-

This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years.
Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social
networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

Agreed.

Like a bell curve, most of the population lies under the center with 1
standard deviation to the right or the left. They both generally think
murder is wrong, both have similar views, more or less, regarding
government reach, taxation and rights - but lean to the left or the
right.

Agreed, mostly.

The internet gives the extreme view an amplified platform - the bell
curve has become a W shape.

Absolutely.

But, the reality is that most people don't want violence in their
streets, want health care to be affordable, want fair taxation,
representation in government, working roads and infrastructure, and to
be able to pass on a better way of life to their kids. That seems
pretty reasonable to the center of either side.

I don't think ANY of these statements are true, in regards to the Left.
I mean... the violence, for example. Nearly ALWAYS a product of the
Left. Taxation? The Left ALWAYS wants more taxes, to pay for their pet projects that only benefit those who will vote Left in return. I could
go on, but you already know the rest.



... All the easy problems have been solved.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Yeah - that's one of the good things I think he did - promote
discussion. There are videos showing him defending the right
of someone that disagrees to speak, becasue that's the point -
not the shouting, but the communication.

Agree with your point. Too many prefer the shouting, vs. listening, these days.


* SLMR 2.1a * Never check for an error you don't know how to handle.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

I hadn't heard about that one yet. ;(

it's tragic. kids were killed on their first day of school.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0lyny7ydo

I'm surprised you didnt hear about it. a trans man attacked a church, killed 2 kids and injured 17.

I have not been watching the news for a few days. Only heard about Kirk getting shot because it showed up on YouTube on the "line" of videos where current events show up. I am guessing with it being a church and with it
not being a white supremacist shooter, it may not stay in the US news long.


* SLMR 2.1a * !edis gnorw eht morf siht ta gnikool era uoY
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Sun Sep 14 2025 10:45 am

I have not been watching the news for a few days. Only heard about
Kirk getting shot because it showed up on YouTube on the "line"
of videos where current events show up. I am guessing with it being
a church and with it not being a white supremacist shooter, it may
not stay in the US news long.

i'm not a big fan of watching the news but i saw it on the internet when it happened. it was late august.

it was a trans guy, had his name changed when
he was a minor. it appears he was fascinated with the other mass shooters.
he said he had a past of making violent threats.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to paulie420 on Fri Sep 12 2025 22:08:45

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered

this kirk guy gets murdered and people are laughing and calling him a nazi and saying there should be more killings.

And there will be. The heat is'a risen.

Mick Manning
https://centralontarioremote.net
centralontarioremote.net:2300
-----

---
þ Synchronet þ Transgender Airlines

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: poindexter FORTRAN to paulie420 on Sun Sep 14 2025 09:10 am

But, the reality is that most people don't want violence in their
streets, want health care to be affordable, want fair taxation,
representation in government, working roads and infrastructure, and to
be able to pass on a better way of life to their kids. That seems
pretty reasonable to the center of either side.

I understand what you are going for, but I think you are missing the mark.

Ideologies are a combination of two things: A set of goals and a plan to achieve those goals.

If your goal is to make healthcare affordable and your plan is to achieve this by giving my money to the government do do it, that enters in conflict with my plan (which does not include giving money to the government for plans I disagree with).

So goals might be the same in the broad sense but the plans are irreconciliable.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?

Does it make a material difference to his stance?

"Need" sure sounds a lot more evil. I guess if I was anti-2A, any talk of people having guns would sound evil but, since I am not, I can see a difference.

I can also understand that...

In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which, to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.

The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns. It was
also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.

...apparently the interpretation of the courts has for a long time been that illegally obtained guns *are* excluded. Otherwise, there would be no laws against certain persons, like felons, the underaged, etc., obtaining guns because all of those would be unconstitutional.

IMHO, there should be some stringent "tack on" charges that always kick in whenever someone uses a stolen or otherwise illegally obtained gun during the commission of a crime. Should apply to any other weapons, too.


* SLMR 2.1a * "Heh, heh, 2400 baud connects suck!" -- V.bis & Baudhead
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

it was a trans guy, had his name changed when
he was a minor. it appears he was fascinated with the other mass shooters.
he said he had a past of making violent threats.

Regardless of how we got away from doing so, we need to get back to the
point where people can be put into psychiatric facilities for showing clear signs of a potential for violence. With many of these crimes, the person
is known to law enforcement because they have a past that includes making
such threats, yet there is not much they can do to them until they make
good on one.

That shouldn't be how that works.


* SLMR 2.1a * I don't have a solution, but I do admire the problem.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years. Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

bullshit.

What part of that is BS? I cannot help but agree that social media have amplified the voices of persons at both extremes. Just about anyone can broadcast now.


* SLMR 2.1a * alnal nathrak uth vaas bethud dothiel dienve
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Mon Sep 15 2025 10:44 am

Regardless of how we got away from doing so, we need to get back to
the point where people can be put into psychiatric facilities for
showing clear signs of a potential for violence. With many of these
crimes, the person is known to law enforcement because they have
a past that includes making such threats, yet there is not much they
can do to them until they make good on one.

That shouldn't be how that works.

honestly people do not care enough to report things. this includes teachers and gun store owners,etc.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to MRO on Mon Sep 15 2025 10:44 am

of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years. Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

bullshit.

What part of that is BS? I cannot help but agree that social media
have amplified the voices of persons at both extremes. Just about
anyone can broadcast now.

Tis theory is bullshit. His whole game is to downplay things and make it seem that liberals are not deranged. Over the years, they have become deranged.
it hasnt shifted back and forth. Do conservatives scratch swastikas on cars, and have riots in the streets?

So what, we have social media, memes, websites and tv. that's how life is
now

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Mon Sep 15 2025 08:15 pm

Tis theory is bullshit. His whole game is to downplay things and make it seem that liberals are not deranged. Over the years, they have become deranged.
it hasnt shifted back and forth. Do conservatives scratch swastikas on cars, and have riots in the streets?

The fundamental problem Kirk's assassination has brought to light, in my opinion, is that a very big sector of the population actively welcomes political violence against people they dislike.

I haven't been following the case but by the look of it, this guy wasn't a professional politician. He sounds to me more like a showman or show personality. Shooting this guy is like shooting a journalist because you don't like what he says in his articles.

I have been saying for a good while that the West is undergoing internal war in which a sector of the population is actively trying to destroy the other. They call it cancel culture, and for so long people has considered it somehow harmless for some reason, but here is the thing I always say: when a collective coordinates itself to destroy the means a person has for making a living, what they are doing is trying to outright kill him (you are welcome to tell me how you get to live if you can't make a living). The only reason why they didn't get people shot is because it gave bad PR, but it is only a natural progression for violence to get open.

And the problem with this people is they want the likes of Trump and Vance and Kirk removed, but they also want *you* removed.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Sep 17 2025 08:18 pm

The fundamental problem Kirk's assassination has brought to light,
in my opinion, is that a very big sector of the population
actively welcomes political violence against people they dislike.

I haven't been following the case but by the look of it, this guy
wasn't a professional politician. He sounds to me more like a showman
or show personality. Shooting this guy is like shooting a journalist
because you don't like what he says in his articles.

yeah if you dont like the guy you dont have to pay attention to him.
you dont have to KILL him.

and there's so many people supporting the murder. we really are doomed.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

I am a distance education UVU student. I have not been polarized by the political climate of the past 9-10 years. I have been ripped apart. And compressed. By actual Great Replacement Theorists, and actual neo-Nazis, some who were patent goose-stepping Trump supporters with "Hilary for Jail" shirts. Nobody can control all their followers, I've been told.

I think that "philosophy" is a great subject. Helps me out a lot, but I see it as rhetoric with "wings." :) I have learned centrist techniques like constrastivism from those classes. So maybe I am dead center politically now?

I am mad as hell about the shooting of Charlie Kirk.
Although I despise trolling and hate.
I can't argue with ghosts.
I can't tell them
"So what's there to debate?
When the love you have is hate
How quickly we fall from grace to earth"

Thank you for the song "Lazarus And The Gospel Plow", Josh Joplin

Loren Cannon

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2024/05/29 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Archaic Binary * bbs.archaicbinary.net

Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: wildkeccak to All on Thu Sep 18 2025 01:27 am

I am a distance education UVU student. I have not been
polarized by the political climate of the past 9-10 years. I have
been ripped apart. And compressed. By actual Great Replacement
Theorists, and actual neo-Nazis, some who were patent goose-stepping
Trump supporters with "Hilary for Jail" shirts. Nobody can control
all their followers, I've been told.

I think that "philosophy" is a great subject. Helps me out a lot,
but I see it as rhetoric with "wings." :) I have learned centrist
techniques like constrastivism from those classes. So maybe I am
dead center politically now?

I am mad as hell about the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Although
I despise trolling and hate. I can't argue with ghosts. I can't
tell them "So what's there to debate? When the love you have is hate
How quickly we fall from grace to earth"

Thank you for the song "Lazarus And The Gospel Plow", Josh Joplin

boy the crazies sure have come out.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to Arelor on Wed Sep 17 2025 09:26 pm

and there's so many people supporting the murder. we really are
doomed.

wow shitty kimmel got shit canned because of local stations complaining
to disney and the fcc.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Dumas Walker wrote to MRO <=-

it was a trans guy, had his name changed when
he was a minor. it appears he was fascinated with the other mass shooters. he said he had a past of making violent threats.

Regardless of how we got away from doing so, we need to get back to the point where people can be put into psychiatric facilities for showing clear signs of a potential for violence. With many of these crimes,
the person is known to law enforcement because they have a past that includes making such threats, yet there is not much they can do to them until they make good on one.

That shouldn't be how that works.

I agree with this! I'm not saying lock everyone up preemptively,
but the focus is always on the TOOL and not the mind behind it...

But when we, as a culture, CELEBRATE someone who 'thinks differently'
instead of trying to get them help, we, as a culture, pay the price.



... Elvis has left the echo.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Dumas Walker wrote to MRO <=-

of their party towards the center... or further.

The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years. Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social networks and the internet have amplified their voices.

bullshit.

What part of that is BS? I cannot help but agree that social media
have amplified the voices of persons at both extremes. Just about
anyone can broadcast now.

Agreed... Vocal minority is an actual term...



... Basic programmers never die, they gosub and don't return
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Arelor wrote to MRO <=-

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Mon Sep 15 2025 08:15 pm

Tis theory is bullshit. His whole game is to downplay things and make it seem that liberals are not deranged. Over the years, they have become deranged.
it hasnt shifted back and forth. Do conservatives scratch swastikas on cars, and have riots in the streets?

The fundamental problem Kirk's assassination has brought to light, in
my opinion, is that a very big sector of the population actively
welcomes political violence against people they dislike.

I haven't been following the case but by the look of it, this guy
wasn't a professional politician. He sounds to me more like a showman
or show personality. Shooting this guy is like shooting a journalist because you don't like what he says in his articles.

That's a pretty good summation! As a Christian, I very much supported
the way he backed up his 'opinions' with God and the Bible. He has
been called a facist because he didn't bow down to 'public opinion'
on things the Bible teaches against, but it's been pointed out that
a facist is generally NOT the person that gives a microphone to people
that disagree with them and invites them to honest and open debate...



... So easy, a child could do it. Child sold separately.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

MRO wrote to all <=-

and there's so many people supporting the murder. we really are
doomed.

wow shitty kimmel got shit canned because of local stations complaining
to disney and the fcc.

I'm all for free speech, and I'm all for 'if you don't like it, don't watch,' but I must admit I thought it spoke volumes of the people that did complain
and said "we'll just not be showing it here."

They didn't, as far as I know, DEMAND that Kimmell be fired, they just
chose to 'not show it,' and then the network responded as they did.

I read an article about a trans comic book artist that DC fired for
basically supporting the murder... I can find it, if anyone is interested.



... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to Dumas Walker on Wed Sep 24 2025 07:34 am

I agree with this! I'm not saying lock everyone up preemptively, but
the focus is always on the TOOL and not the mind behind it...

But when we, as a culture, CELEBRATE someone who 'thinks differently' instead of trying to get them help, we, as a culture, pay the price.

each time something happens there are clues or other things that need to be reported. like the kirk killer was engraving bullets around his boyfriend. that person should have reported him. also i'm sure he said stuff in the past that hinted what he would eventually do.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to Dumas Walker on Wed Sep 24 2025 07:34 am

What part of that is BS? I cannot help but agree that social media have amplified the voices of persons at both extremes. Just about anyone can broadcast now.

Agreed... Vocal minority is an actual term...

wake up dude. the ones you are calling vocal minorities are the ones rioting and doing acts of domestic terrorism.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

I agree with this! I'm not saying lock everyone up preemptively,
but the focus is always on the TOOL and not the mind behind it...

Indeed... well, except people seem to like to know which way they lean politically. Beyond that, most don't seem to care if the person was, or
should have been, on the radar before the violent act.

But when we, as a culture, CELEBRATE someone who 'thinks differently'
instead of trying to get them help, we, as a culture, pay the price.

Thinking differently is a good thing. It is when that thinking differently involves thoughts of violence that we need to handle better than we are now. There are some domestic terror groups out there that take advantage of
these kind of people being unsupervised. They find and recruit them via
social media.


* SLMR 2.1a * This tagline is property of Oaks Correctional Facility
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Sep 17 2025 08:18 pm

By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Mon Sep 15 2025 08:15 pm

No one wants YOU removed. That's just the fear engine talking.

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to Arelor on Fri Sep 26 2025 11:45 pm

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Sep 17 2025 08:18 pm

By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Mon Sep 15 2025 08:15 pm

No one wants YOU removed. That's just the fear engine talking.

you need to work on your quoting.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to Arelor on Fri Sep 26 2025 11:45 pm

No one wants YOU removed. That's just the fear engine talking.

If you get preasure in order for your articles to fit a certain policy and are told you are out if they donñ t, then yes, they want YOU removed. Plain and simple, any coordinated effort to prevent you from making a living on political grounds is a coordinated effort to kill you on political grounds. Unless you are able to live without making a living.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
ï¿­ Synchronet ï¿­ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to Sol Feace on Sat Sep 27 2025 05:00 am

It's been 30 years, gimme a break.
---
þ Synchronet þ Aneto

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Arelor to Sol Feace on Sat Sep 27 2025 01:54 pm

You don't have a right to use Facebook, Instagram, or anything like that. You also don't have a right to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, which is generally what Kirk was doing. Absolutely violent rhetoric. It seems the only people who think he's been doing great have only recently heard of him.

Removing someone from a platform isn't the same as wanting you removed from reality, which is what you originally implied.

Besides, I thought political violence was acceptable. January 6th convicts out front should've told ya. Pardons for all!
---
þ Synchronet þ Aneto

Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to Mickey on Sun Sep 28 2025 02:27 pm

Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Mickey to Jopie on Thu Sep 11 2025 07:55 pm

Gish gallop, non-sequitur, straw-men. He didn't debate. He "gotach'd" inexperienced college kids. A 30 something year old man using
tactics that would get you thrown off any legitimate debate team.

Don't admit that style of debate intrigued you in public, man! All
just a grift.

so his kids have to grow up with a father now?
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to Cozmo on Sun Sep 28 2025 02:29 pm

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Cozmo to Jopie on Fri Sep 12 2025 01:54 pm

Didn't BTK have a family who loved him?

what a baseline terribly low metric to live by. "I got kids!!"

cant you just fucking quote better.


no btk's family didnt love him.
his wife was cheating on him and his daughter didnt love him.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to MRO on Sun Sep 28 2025 02:19 pm

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to Sol Feace on Sat Sep 27 2025 05:00 am

It's been 30 years, gimme a break.

30 years of what? since you quoted a msg properly?
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

You don't have a right to use Facebook, Instagram, or anything like that. You also don't have a right to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, which is generally
what Kirk was doing. Absolutely violent rhetoric. It seems the only people who
think he's been doing great have only recently heard of him.

While I don't think that was quite what Kirk was doing, he overall wasn't helping anything and he does seem to have a lot more fans in death than life.

He did help expose some hypocrasy in today's college students, even if you don't agree with the methods he used to to so, but his melding of religion
and politics was objectionable and dangerous.

Besides, I thought political violence was acceptable. January 6th convicts out
front should've told ya. Pardons for all!

Only acceptable when it is against people one doesn't agree with.


* SLMR 2.1a * Blue Wave Tagline makers can DO IT l o n g e r .
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to Arelor on Sun Sep 28 2025 02:23 pm

Removing someone from a platform isn't the same as wanting you removed from reality, which is what you originally implied.

I am not talking about removing people from "platforms", I am talking about mobs chasing your business down so you no longer have a business. This means they don't want you to have a job. This means they want you to starve and die. It is really that simple.

The only reason these people don't go full Italian Fasci di Combatimento and start offing people directly is that it is bad PR.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-

I agree with this! I'm not saying lock everyone up preemptively,
but the focus is always on the TOOL and not the mind behind it...

Indeed... well, except people seem to like to know which way they lean politically. Beyond that, most don't seem to care if the person was,
or should have been, on the radar before the violent act.

Yeah - used to be race, or sex - now it is politically leaning.
SMH

But when we, as a culture, CELEBRATE someone who 'thinks differently' instead of trying to get them help, we, as a culture, pay the price.

Thinking differently is a good thing.

YES! I'm not advocating for automatons at all! I believe people
have differenting opinions about things and that's fine!

I was referring specificially to trans and LGBTQ. I have no problem
with people disagreeing with what I see as facts and truth, but like
you say that doesn't mean you get to inflict violence if I refuse
to acknowledge your delusion...

It is when that thinking
differently involves thoughts of violence that we need to handle better than we are now. There are some domestic terror groups out there that
take advantage of these kind of people being unsupervised. They find
and recruit them via social media.

Wasn't aware of that, but not surprised either...



... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Sol Feace wrote to Arelor <=-

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Arelor to Sol Feace on Sat Sep 27 2025 01:54 pm

You don't have a right to use Facebook, Instagram, or anything like
that. You also don't have a right to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, which is generally what Kirk was doing. Absolutely violent rhetoric.

Can you give an example of something you think was 'violent
rhetoric?'


... Crying over spilled CONDENSED milk is okay...
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Dumas Walker wrote to SOL FEACE <=-

You don't have a right to use Facebook, Instagram, or anything like that.

You

also don't have a right to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, which is

generally

what Kirk was doing. Absolutely violent rhetoric. It seems the only people

who

think he's been doing great have only recently heard of him.

While I don't think that was quite what Kirk was doing, he overall
wasn't helping anything and he does seem to have a lot more fans in
death than life.

It has causd a lot more people to hear the Gospel message now!

He did help expose some hypocrasy in today's college students, even if
you don't agree with the methods he used to to so, but his melding of religion and politics was objectionable and dangerous.

I'm gonna disagree with you there. Politics is supposed to be
"of the people, for the people, by the people." The 'people' have
a religious belief which is inseperable from their inner being.

For example, do you vote your religious beliefs? I would assume
so...

Besides, I thought political violence was acceptable. January 6th convicts

out

front should've told ya. Pardons for all!

Only acceptable when it is against people one doesn't agree with.

Never acceptable at all. I wasn't there, and wouldn't have
wanted to be there on January 6th. That being said, there
are reports of FBI people there as well. Does that cloud
anything for you? It does for me!


... Spilled spot remover on my dog. :(
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

But when we, as a culture, CELEBRATE someone who 'thinks differently' instead of trying to get them help, we, as a culture, pay the price.

Thinking differently is a good thing.

I was referring specificially to trans and LGBTQ. I have no problem
with people disagreeing with what I see as facts and truth, but like
you say that doesn't mean you get to inflict violence if I refuse
to acknowledge your delusion...

Agreed. Seems like a lot of folks think defaulting to violence is the
proper way, and I don't understand that.

It is when that thinking
differently involves thoughts of violence that we need to handle better than we are now. There are some domestic terror groups out there that take advantage of these kind of people being unsupervised. They find and recruit them via social media.

Wasn't aware of that, but not surprised either...

I was not, either, but recently learned of it.


* SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....chocolate."
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

He did help expose some hypocrasy in today's college students, even if you don't agree with the methods he used to to so, but his melding of religion and politics was objectionable and dangerous.

I'm gonna disagree with you there. Politics is supposed to be
"of the people, for the people, by the people." The 'people' have
a religious belief which is inseperable from their inner being.

For example, do you vote your religious beliefs? I would assume
so...

Not necessarily. Religious beliefs and moral values are related in a lot
of people, but melding politics and religion together is dangerous. We
don't live in a theocracy. If someone is running for office and supposedly shares my religious beliefs, but I also believe they would ruin the
country's economy, security, etc., I would not vote for them.

There also seem to be a lot of people who believe that Donald Trump
is a person of high morals and religious values, and I believe that view is delluded. His expression of his feelings towards his enemies that he
expressed during the serivce for Kirk should have opened their eyes on this.

But, last I checked (which has been months now), you still have people in
FIDO POLITICS who think Trump is Jesus. Last I checked, Jesus believed you should love your enemies, something Trump has said he does not do.

Only acceptable when it is against people one doesn't agree with.

Never acceptable at all. I wasn't there, and wouldn't have
wanted to be there on January 6th. That being said, there
are reports of FBI people there as well. Does that cloud
anything for you? It does for me!

I don't believe it is acceptable, but there are a lot of folks who do
believe it is acceptable so long as it is against people they don't agree
with, but not against "one of their own." That includes both MAGAs and lefists, by the way.

As for January 6, it does muddle things but, ultimately, if you have a
leader who is...

(1) throwing a loser's party in DC on the same day as the certification of
the Electoral College, despite the advice from his advisors that he
probably shouldn't do it;
(2) that believes enough that things could get out of hand that he claims
he asked for additional security;
(3) and he doesn't decide to alter or cancel his plans when he finds out that additional security won't be available...

then you have someone who at least shares the fault in what happened next. Rather than accept any of the fault, Trump has deflected it all.

TL;DR - If you don't throw an ill-advised loser's party for the FBI to infiltrate, nothing happens... or at least nothing that can be tied back directly to you.


* SLMR 2.1a * "My eyeballs nearly popped out!"
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to Sol Feace on Sat Oct 04 2025 04:20 pm

Can you give an example of something you think was 'violent rhetoric?'

You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?

Black people were better under Jim Crow laws.

He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby.

Trans people are like people wearing Black Face.

Black women can't be taken seriously since they're thieves.

General anti-vaccination.

Democrat women want to die alone without children.

Gay people should be stoned.

If you want the actual quotes, they're easily searchable. But these were his values and his removal from the world is tragic for his kids. Oh well.
---
þ Synchronet þ Aneto

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to jimmylogan on Wed Oct 22 2025 09:32 pm

You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?

He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists
baby.

agree. the baby did nothing.

Trans people are like people wearing Black Face.

agree

General anti-vaccination.

is it entire vaccinations or just the fake covid vax that kills people
or maims them.

Democrat women want to die alone without children.

agree

Gay people should be stoned.

"Other misinterpretations and misrepresentations include claims that Charlie Kirk advocated "stoning gays." Author Stephen King shared this on social
media to show Kirk was promoting violence against LGBTQ people. He later deleted the post and apologised, admitting he had misunderstood Kirk's comments.

In reality, Kirk was only responding to YouTuber Rachel's selective use of biblical passages to commemorate Pride Month by referencing the Bible.

"By the way, Ms Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In
a lesser reference, part of the same part of scripture, in Leviticus 18, is that 'thou shalt lie with another man, and thou shalt be stoned to death.' Just saying," Kirk said.

Kirk spoke to a gay college student in Wisconsin and said, "I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexuality because that's not who you are."

If you want the actual quotes, they're easily searchable. But these

yeah we can search for them easily and see you're full of shit.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to jimmylogan on Wed Oct 22 2025 09:32 pm

You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?

I don't think most of those count as violent rethoric because they are not promoting violence. Things don't count as violent rethoric just because they are controversial, or because you dislike them, or because they are retarded.

Violent rethoric is Che Guevara saying the judicial system should be bypassed so bourgeoisies get executed more efficiently without trial. Violent rethoric would be saying gays have to be stoned, but mro already bought the subject up so there you have it.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-

He did help expose some hypocrasy in today's college students, even if you don't agree with the methods he used to to so, but his melding of religion and politics was objectionable and dangerous.

I'm gonna disagree with you there. Politics is supposed to be
"of the people, for the people, by the people." The 'people' have
a religious belief which is inseperable from their inner being.

For example, do you vote your religious beliefs? I would assume
so...

Not necessarily. Religious beliefs and moral values are related in a
lot of people, but melding politics and religion together is dangerous.
We don't live in a theocracy. If someone is running for office and supposedly shares my religious beliefs, but I also believe they would
ruin the country's economy, security, etc., I would not vote for them.

Okay - let me be a little more direct. If someone 'supposedly' shares
your belief but you think they would ruin things, do they really
share your beliefs?

In other words, if someone shares your beliefs about transgender,
that there is only two genders, would you support them? Because
if you believe that's not positive for the country as a whole,
then do you really have that belief to begin with?

Does that make sense?

I am a disciple of Christ - period. If someone has the fruit of
the Spirit and is running for office, then I'm going to support
them if it matches my personal convictions. If I believe
their views are NOT GOOD for the country, then I don't see
how I could agree with them.

There also seem to be a lot of people who believe that Donald Trump
is a person of high morals and religious values, and I believe that
view is delluded. His expression of his feelings towards his enemies
that he expressed during the serivce for Kirk should have opened their eyes on this.

I didn't watch it, so I can't comment on it, but I will say that
people that look to Trump as the moral pinacle are delluded for
sure. If someone is a true follower of Christ, then they SHOULD
know that politics is not the answer - and politicians are not
the Savior. God is in control.

But, last I checked (which has been months now), you still have people
in FIDO POLITICS who think Trump is Jesus. Last I checked, Jesus
believed you should love your enemies, something Trump has said he does not do.

Yeah there are those that think Trump is the Christ. And yes, Jesus loves
His enemies and tells us to as well. Part of the issue is that the
definition of love is not the same to everyone. Jesus loved me so
much that He died for my sins, even though He had no sins of His
own.

But when you turn to Him, you are instructed to 'sin no more' - you
are instructed to repent. You are 'loved and accepted,' but not
expected to continue to do things that He has said not to do.

Only acceptable when it is against people one doesn't agree with.

Never acceptable at all. I wasn't there, and wouldn't have
wanted to be there on January 6th. That being said, there
are reports of FBI people there as well. Does that cloud
anything for you? It does for me!

I don't believe it is acceptable, but there are a lot of folks who do believe it is acceptable so long as it is against people they don't
agree with, but not against "one of their own." That includes both
MAGAs and lefists, by the way.

As for January 6, it does muddle things but, ultimately, if you have a leader who is...

(1) throwing a loser's party in DC on the same day as the
certification of the Electoral College, despite the advice from his advisors that he probably shouldn't do it;
(2) that believes enough that things could get out of hand that he
claims he asked for additional security;
(3) and he doesn't decide to alter or cancel his plans when he finds
out that additional security won't be available...

then you have someone who at least shares the fault in what happened
next. Rather than accept any of the fault, Trump has deflected it all.

TL;DR - If you don't throw an ill-advised loser's party for the FBI to infiltrate, nothing happens... or at least nothing that can be tied
back directly to you.

I don't know all the details, and honestly don't have a huge opinion
either way. If he really did cause it, then blame him. But if it
wan't actually his fault, then... Well... :-)


... Direct from the Ministry of Silly Walks
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Sol Feace wrote to jimmylogan <=-

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to Sol Feace on Sat Oct 04 2025 04:20 pm

Can you give an example of something you think was 'violent rhetoric?'

You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?

Black people were better under Jim Crow laws.

The full conversation was that he was pointing out that the
black community is generally worse off today than back then.
He wasn't saying that Jim Crow laws caused them to be
better off, and if you listen he goes on to say that the
loss of the father figure is the reason.

He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby.

He is against abortion under any circumstance, as am I. You say
'her rapist's baby' but you could also say that the baby is an
innocent person. Is killing an innocent person okay? No. Does
it matter who the father of the innocent person is? No.

Now - you can disagree with that, and that's your right, but
to say it's violent rhetoric to be in support of the life of
innocent people?

Trans people are like people wearing Black Face.

I haven't heard that one, but I don't disagree. If you are
a male and wear women's clothing, it's like being white
and weating black face makeup. You are pretending to be
something you are not.

How is that violent rhetoric?

Black women can't be taken seriously since they're thieves.

Haven't heard that one either...

General anti-vaccination.

Nor this one. Just covid or all of it? And again, how is that
violent?

Democrat women want to die alone without children.

Gay people should be stoned.

Also never heard either of these. But I would love to hear
the conversation around the last one. I will look it up, but
I assume it was someone asking about Old Testament law. I've
heard him say that the law in THAT day called for it. He
doesn't agree with it now, of course, but doesn't condemn
people in another time for their laws.

I heard him talking once about something similar and explained
how God was in charge and if God gave a command, the Hebrews
were expected to follow it. If God the creator of the universe
said to do something, they were expected to do it.

In the New Testemant, we are not 'under the law' as the OT
Jews were, so no we would not do that today at all.

If you want the actual quotes, they're easily searchable. But these
were his values and his removal from the world is tragic for his kids.
Oh well. ---

You say tragic for his kids - but you don't think tragic in general?




... Ensign Pillsbury? He's BREAD, Jim
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Arelor wrote to Sol Feace <=-

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to jimmylogan on Wed Oct 22 2025 09:32 pm

You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?

I don't think most of those count as violent rethoric because they are
not promoting violence. Things don't count as violent rethoric just because they are controversial, or because you dislike them, or because they are retarded.

Violent rethoric is Che Guevara saying the judicial system should be bypassed so bourgeoisies get executed more efficiently without trial. Violent rethoric would be saying gays have to be stoned, but mro
already bought the subject up so there you have it.

Yeah - my thoughts exactly - but I did ask him to explain how they
are as such, so we'll see... (and yes, I'm behind on messages - LOL)


... This tagline is property of Oaks Correctional Facility
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

He did help expose some hypocrasy in today's college students, even if
you don't agree with the methods he used to to so, but his melding of religion and politics was objectionable and dangerous.

I'm gonna disagree with you there. Politics is supposed to be
"of the people, for the people, by the people." The 'people' have
a religious belief which is inseperable from their inner being.

For example, do you vote your religious beliefs? I would assume
so...

Not necessarily. Religious beliefs and moral values are related in a lot of people, but melding politics and religion together is dangerous.
We don't live in a theocracy. If someone is running for office and supposedly shares my religious beliefs, but I also believe they would ruin the country's economy, security, etc., I would not vote for them.

Okay - let me be a little more direct. If someone 'supposedly' shares
your belief but you think they would ruin things, do they really
share your beliefs?

Politically, no, and that is what I look at when I vote.

In other words, if someone shares your beliefs about transgender,
that there is only two genders, would you support them? Because
if you believe that's not positive for the country as a whole,
then do you really have that belief to begin with?

Does that make sense?

If they share my beliefs about transgender -- that for some it is a real affliction but that it is also being used as a dangerous net to snare kids,
and that trans-women don't belong in women's sports -- but they either plan
to address this in a way that I do *not* support *OR* have a bunch of other ideas about unrelated things that I think are really bad, then we may share a belief but I would still hesitate to support them.

In other words, their religious convictions could match mine 100% but they still may have ideas that are so bad I would have to ignore the religious similarities and not support them.

Even if I voted 100% with my relgious convictions, I would still have 100%
not voted for either major party candidate because neither Trump nor Harris ticked many/any religious boxes for me. Very, very few politicians ever
would.


* SLMR 2.1a * Spelling is a sober man's game
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby.

He is against abortion under any circumstance, as am I. You say
'her rapist's baby' but you could also say that the baby is an
innocent person. Is killing an innocent person okay? No. Does
it matter who the father of the innocent person is? No.

Criminality can run in families, and may sometimes be genetic, so I would
argue that it does matter who the father is.

I heard him talking once about something similar and explained
how God was in charge and if God gave a command, the Hebrews
were expected to follow it. If God the creator of the universe
said to do something, they were expected to do it.

I had forgotten how hard core OT God was, especially from Exodus through Deuroronomy. For example, if he told you and I to do something, and you
did it but I didn't (or didn't do it *exactly* as I was told), he wouldn't
just punish me. He'd burn, plague, or have the Earth swallow *both* of us
up, even if you followed his direction exactly!

Or he'd punish us both until you stoned me to death. Then he'd stop
punishing you.

That is pretty messed up!


* SLMR 2.1a * Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-

In other words, their religious convictions could match mine 100% but
they still may have ideas that are so bad I would have to ignore the religious similarities and not support them.

Even if I voted 100% with my relgious convictions, I would still have
100% not voted for either major party candidate because neither Trump
nor Harris ticked many/any religious boxes for me. Very, very few politicians ever would.

Okay - I don't think I'm communicating my thoughts good enough. :-)

My point is if someone shared my religious beliefs/convictions
100% then we would, by default, agree on policy me thinks...



... Southern DOS: Ya'll reckon? (Y)ep/(N)ope
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-

He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby.

He is against abortion under any circumstance, as am I. You say
'her rapist's baby' but you could also say that the baby is an
innocent person. Is killing an innocent person okay? No. Does
it matter who the father of the innocent person is? No.

Criminality can run in families, and may sometimes be genetic, so I
would argue that it does matter who the father is.

So any criminal or rapist should have their offsprint killed
off? To prevent them from committing same crimes?

I heard him talking once about something similar and explained
how God was in charge and if God gave a command, the Hebrews
were expected to follow it. If God the creator of the universe
said to do something, they were expected to do it.

I had forgotten how hard core OT God was, especially from Exodus
through Deuroronomy. For example, if he told you and I to do
something, and you did it but I didn't (or didn't do it *exactly* as I
was told), he wouldn't just punish me. He'd burn, plague, or have the Earth swallow *both* of us up, even if you followed his direction
exactly!

Or he'd punish us both until you stoned me to death. Then he'd stop punishing you.

That is pretty messed up!

"Messed up" - by what standard?



... Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to JIMMYLOGAN on Sat Nov 01 2025 11:07 am

something, and you did it but I didn't (or didn't do it *exactly*
as I was told), he wouldn't just punish me. He'd burn, plague,
or have the Earth swallow *both* of us up, even if you followed
his direction exactly!

Or he'd punish us both until you stoned me to death. Then he'd stop punishing you.

That is pretty messed up!

then he got real pissed off and caused the flood that killed almost everything. and then he realized he went too far and said he wouldn't do it ever again.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::