Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control

[ataraxia]

If they're selling nukes, I'm getting one before the hippies have a hissy fit.

I just want one because I think having one behind the window of my house with a blinking red light next to it can scare off potential burglars.

My right to arms of any kind, including nuclear arms, shall not be infringed. It's not about use. I will use it as I please. Arrest me only if I hurt anyone with it.

 

[The Brad Dad]

If you think guns are, then support that. Don't try to change what you said.

Support what? Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed for transport. You have the outlier belief - I think. You wont argue. Just more stalling.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I just want one because I think having one behind the window of my house with a blinking red light next to it can scare off potential burglars.

My right to arms of any kind, including nuclear arms, shall not be infringed. It's not about use. I will use it as I please. Arrest me only if I hurt anyone with it.

I want one because the town next to mine gave me a bullshit parking ticket.

That town is 2 miles away. They can arrest what's left all they like.

Hamish,
Will burn the world down before he pays that ticket.

 

[Hamish Howl]

You don't have a constitutional right to murder someone with a gun either, and that is generally handled at the state level.

Yes, but the subject was gun control, which should never be regulated at the state level.

 

[ataraxia]

Virtually all firearms can be used to kill living things. Is that the criteria by which you determined their primary purpose?

No one thinks cars were designed primarily so we can watch car races. And no one thinks guns were primarily designed so people could target practice.

Firearms are heavily regulated. I'm in favor of regulations that directly address those who criminally use firearms.

So you agree with the regulations on post #426 which have proven benefit. Great. See, these discussions can be fruitful sometimes.

 

[Hamish Howl]

No one thinks cars were designed primarily so we can watch car races. And no one thinks guns were primarily designed so people could target practice.

Assault rifles were primarily designed to be worn on the backs of fat insurance adjusters when they go to McDonalds.

This is known.

 

[ataraxia]

What is a browning BT99 designed to kill?

What CAN'T it kill?

It's the equivalent of a sports car. You can still use it for the primary purpose of that class of equipment: transportation for cars, killing for firearms.

 

[rahl]

the CDC wasn’t allowed to research firearm deaths.

Yes they were

I never said any such thing. No wonder you’re clapping like you won a prize.

It’s so funny when people lie and get caught

Vs the imaginary crimes you're going to save people from with your heroism because you have a gun.

A constitutional amendment wouldn't be stripping anyone of anything. It means people wanted it, pols debated it, and an amendment was passed. You do know how the constitution works despite not believing in it, right?

So as I said, if you pass an amendment banning guns, your argument is I wasn’t stripped of my right to own a gun. So the same applies if a constitutional amendment is passed making slavery legal.

 

[rahl]

So can a pencil.

Exactly. Now you’re understanding the stupidity of the “designed to kill” argument gun banners make.

 

[ataraxia]

Assault rifles were primarily designed to be worn on the backs of fat insurance adjusters when they go to McDonalds.

This is known.

I thought it was for creepy looking guys to haul it around the local elementary school and challenging anyone to question their second amendment right to do so.

 

[rahl]

Nothing has been refuted.

Proven lie

You have not provided no argument or evidence that regulating nuclear arms sales is somehow fundamentally different than regulating other types of arms sales.

Other than directly showing it’s fundamentally different.

They are all infringing on your right to arms.

Nukes aren’t arms.

No they haven't. All you have done is just randomly assert that. No data.

You know that they have, with data.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I thought it was for creepy looking guys to haul it around the local elementary school and challenging anyone to question their second amendment right to do so.

That happens, but mostly they're accessorizing.

Like when Paris Hilton used to cart that stupid little dog around.

 

[RF667799]

No one thinks cars were designed primarily so we can watch car races. And no one thinks guns were primarily designed so people could target practice.

You're dodging my question and invoking a fallacy. Appeal to popularity.

I'll repeat my question:

Virtually all firearms can be used to kill living things. Is that the criteria by which you determined their primary purpose?

So you agree with the regulations on post #426 which have proven benefit. Great. See, these discussions can be fruitful sometimes.

You would have to show those regulations meet the criteria I said. I'm not interested in regulations that primarily make it more difficult for peaceful people to exercise their rights and civil liberties. Fascists do that.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Yes they were

It’s so funny when people lie and get caught

So as I said, if you pass an amendment banning guns, your argument is I wasn’t stripped of my right to own a gun. So the same applies if a constitutional amendment is passed making slavery legal.

CDC was not allowed to research firearm deaths.

Black people arent inanimate objects. If you don’t believe in amendments, don’t babble about being law abiding. Do better.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Are you asking how to prevent suicide and self harm? Because one of the best strategies used is denial of means. You literally deny someone the means with which they harm themselves.



Hey listen if you don't want to follow universal gun safety rules that's fine, just admit you don't want to follow universal gun safety laws. Ammo and guns are always stored and locked separately to avoid accidental discharge, because as the NRA puts it, even mechanical locks on guns can fail.

You lied and you admitted you lied. Please IM me your contact info so my lawyer can be in touch.

And btw, you prove your complete lack of knowledge. If a round is not chambered, failure of a mechanical lock will have no effect.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Yes they were

It’s so funny when people lie and get caught

So as I said, if you pass an amendment banning guns, your argument is I wasn’t stripped of my right to own a gun. So the same applies if a constitutional amendment is passed making slavery legal.

There IS precedent. Amendment 18, which worked out nicely for everyone. Particularly mobsters.

 

[RF667799]

Yes, but the subject was gun control, which should never be regulated at the state level.

If you're limiting that to keeping and bearing arms.

But use is very often regulated at the state and even local level.

 

[rahl]

What CAN'T it kill?

Can and designed to are different things. You said it’s designed to kill. What is it designed to kill?

It's the equivalent of a sports car.

No it isn’t.

You can still use it for the primary purpose of that class of equipment: transportation for cars, killing for firearms.

You haven’t supported your assertion firearms are designed to kill. Only that they can used to kill.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

You lied and you admitted you lied. Please IM me your contact info so my lawyer can be in touch.

And btw, you prove your complete lack of knowledge. If a round is not chambered, failure of a mechanical lock will have no effect.

Your gun is kept with the ammo. That's not safe. Don't like it? Too bad. You're not safe with firearms by your own standards.

 

[rahl]

CDC was not allowed to research firearm deaths.

Yes they were.

Black people arent inanimate objects. If you don’t believe in amendments, don’t babble about being law abiding. Do better.

It’s so funny that you got caught lying about what you said

 

[Hamish Howl]

If you're limiting that to keeping and bearing arms.

But use is very often regulated at the state and even local level.

Yeah, that's some bullshit, given the supremacy clause.

I mean, I agree it happens, but it's bullshit.

 

[JMB1911A1]

the CDC wasn’t allowed to research firearm deaths.

So, how did the Obama CDC do a firearm study in 2013 that concluded that self defense uses range from 500k to 3 million per a year (average of that would be ~1.7 million)?

Oh wait, you lied. Because the law never prevented research. It prevented gun control advocacy.

I guess when you don’t know anything, lying comes easier to you.

I never said any such thing. No wonder you’re clapping like you won a prize.

 

[RF667799]

Support what? Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed for transport. You have the outlier belief - I think. You wont argue. Just more stalling.

You won't do anything but make that claim and run away from supporting it. In fact, you keep changing the claim.

That sort of intellectual dishonesty is something we see from gun control zealots quite often here.

If guns are categorically designed to kill (according to this latest claim), explain how you came to that conclusion.

 

[ataraxia]

You're dodging my question and invoking a fallacy. Appeal to popularity.

I'll repeat my question:

Virtually all firearms can be used to kill living things. Is that the criteria by which you determined their primary purpose?

That's what they were first designed and used for.

"The first firearms originated in 10th-century China, when bamboo tubes containing gunpowder and pellet projectiles were mounted on spears to make the portable fire lance,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm#cite_note-Helaine-4"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a> operable by a single person, which was later used effectively as a shock weapon in the siege of De'an in 1132."

Firearm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You think these 10th century guys designed them primarily for target practice as a weekend hobby?

You would have to show those regulations meet the criteria I said. I'm not interested in regulations that primarily make it more difficult for peaceful people to exercise their rights and civil liberties. Fascists do that.

Post #426 has links to the evidence showing that it does.

 

[The Brad Dad]

You won't do anything but make that claim and run away from supporting it. In fact, you keep changing the claim.

That sort of intellectual dishonesty is something we see from gun control zealots quite often here.

If guns are categorically designed to kill (according to this latest claim), explain how you came to that conclusion.

Zzzzzz