Guns Were Invented TO KILL PEOPLE!!

[RF667799]

You got the point but apparently not the direction... like I said before, you are not very good at this.

Are you saying that you were trying to communicate that *I* shouldn't own a gun?

Because you think I am a prohibited person?

 

[RF667799]

It's also cold out.

Also you know I have morals...but then again that's the problem with you people. Black and white and everything is either or.

You said I only subscribe to an idea of rights that includes yours, because society would punish me otherwise.
But you independently subscribe to such an idea because you have morals?

Who is "you people"? The remainder of humanity apart from yourself?

 

[grip]

Guns were invented for the purpose of killing everything alive. It's just a more effective tool than previous weapons.

 

[Bodi]

Because you think I am a prohibited person?

No. Not because of that.

Are you saying that you were trying to communicate that *I* shouldn't own a gun?

Nobody who thinks about shitting on people's heads should be allowed to own a gun.

Who is "you people"? The remainder of humanity apart from yourself?

It is very clear who "you people" are... except to those people.

 

[Atomic Kid]

How is any of that substantively different from how or *why* any weapons were/are developed? (See my post 8)

Substantively different? Are you kidding me? You are trying to extrapolate an entirely different premise as to primary purpose of the first 'guns' served other than what they did. I think at best you can try to argue the more 'modern' viewpoint that people use guns to defend themselves and their families, and/or in some backward retrospect provide for their families. Although even in the early days of the formation of this country the US had an overwhelmingly agrarian oriented economy and so very few needed to 'hunt' in order to provide an existence for themselves and their families. So as attractively romantic and humanizing that rationale may sound, the inescapable reality is that the historical first and primary use, and reason for their existence, was militarily oriented. And the primary purpose of them was to visit death,mayhem and fear upon the 'enemy'. Which were other human beings, however it is you may categorize them. One the best pieces of advice I have ever seen or heard, was to never, ever, point a gun at anything you aren't willing to see destroyed. Because that is what they do. They destroy whatever it is they are pointed at should you pull the trigger. And it's a result that is irreversible once that happens.

 

[RF667799]

No. Not because of that.

Nobody who thinks about shitting on people's heads should be allowed to own a gun.

It is very clear who "you people" are... except to those people.

Oh.

Crawfish time, eh?

 

[RF667799]

Substantively different? Are you kidding me? You are trying to extrapolate an entirely different premise as to primary purpose of the first 'guns' served. i think at best you can argue that this more 'modern' viewpoint that people use guns to defend themselves and their families, and or provide for their families. But as attractively romantic and humanizing that may sound, the inescapable reality that the historical first and primary use and reason for their existence was militarily oriented, and it's primary purpose was to visit death and mayhem upon the 'enemy'. Which were other human beings. One the best pieces of advice I have ever seen or heard was to never, ever, point a gun at anything you aren't willing to see destroyed. Because that is what they do. They destroy whatever it is they are pointed at should you pull the trigger. And it's a result that is irreversible once it happens.

Nobody but nobody argues that guns can't be used to kill. Killing is sometimes a legitimately desirable outcome, thus a useful purpose for a gun.

 

[Bodi]

x

Oh.

Crawfish time, eh?

Just so... boring.

 

[RF667799]

x

Just so... boring.

Yet here you are.

 

[Bodi]

Yet here you are.

About at the end of the rope hoping you do better... it is pretty clear you can't.

 

[Plasmaball]

You said I only subscribe to an idea of rights that includes yours, because society would punish me otherwise.
But you independently subscribe to such an idea because you have morals?

Who is "you people"? The remainder of humanity apart from yourself?

Would they not punish you if you break societies laws?
Yes yes they would.
No I run the same as you.. I just look at things objectively.

I mean if you wan to get down to it, the idea that there is a thin line between structure and chaos is quite real.
People have these discussions all the time trying to judge how soon it would take society to collapse.

Shrug..

 

[Plasmaball]

Yet here you are.

It's his thread?

 

[RF667799]

It's his thread?

Yes, and telling us how boring it is.

 

[RF667799]

Would they not punish you if you break societies laws?
Yes yes they would.
No I run the same as you.. I just look at things objectively.

I mean if you wan to get down to it, the idea that there is a thin line between structure and chaos is quite real.
People have these discussions all the time trying to judge how soon it would take society to collapse.

Shrug..

They would. But I try to refrain from harming innocent people without even considering any fear of society's censure.

What are your objective morals?

 

[RF667799]

About at the end of the rope hoping you do better... it is pretty clear you can't.

You're self contradicting. Is that deliberate?

 

[Atomic Kid]

Nobody but nobody argues that guns can't be used to kill.

I would certainly hope not, because that would be quite a stupid thing to do.

Killing is sometimes a legitimately desirable outcome, thus a useful purpose for a gun.

And it is very often, and I would argue, that killing has become a substantially far less desirable and useful outcome in terms of its societal implications in today's world. But there is no denying what the gun's original purpose and reason for being was.

 

[Bodi]

You're self contradicting. Is that deliberate?

I think that is it... the number of people that try to be clever like you are make such completely stupid posts is actually quite rare.

 

[RF667799]

I would certainly hope not, because that would be quite a stupid thing to do.

And it is very often, and I would argue, that killing has become a substantially far less desirable and useful outcome in terms of its societal implications in today's world. But there is no denying what the gun's original purpose and reason for being was.

Killing as such? Nah. There's always a place, even a necessity for killing.

 

[RF667799]

I think that is it... the number of people that try to be clever like you are make such completely stupid posts is actually quite rare.

Was "incoherent" the effect you were going for there?

 

[Lursa]

Substantively different? Are you kidding me? You are trying to extrapolate an entirely different premise as to primary purpose of the first 'guns' served other than what they did.

How is my premise entirely different, please be specific? How/why was the development of guns significantly different than the development of weapons before that? ANd I'm not talking about technology. All thru history, we use technology to advance and improve everything.

I think at best you can try to argue the more 'modern' viewpoint that people use guns to defend themselves and their families, and/or in some backward retrospect provide for their families.

When did that need become "new or current?" Or just for modern people? Are you kidding? Survival, resources, reproduction (protecting family) has been a primary human function since we first stood up.

Although even in the early days of the formation of this country the US had an overwhelmingly agrarian oriented economy and so very few needed to 'hunt' in order to provide an existence for themselves and their families. So as attractively romantic and humanizing that rationale may sound, the inescapable reality is that the historical first and primary use, and reason for their existence, was militarily oriented. And the primary purpose of them was to visit death,mayhem and fear upon the 'enemy'. Which were other human beings, however it is you may categorize them. One the best pieces of advice I have ever seen or heard, was to never, ever, point a gun at anything you aren't willing to see destroyed. Because that is what they do. They destroy whatever it is they are pointed at should you pull the trigger. And it's a result that is irreversible once that happens.

Gun powder and guns predate the US and the 2A. So discussions of their "design" need to go back further than that.

 

[rahl]

Why is it so hard for you to grasp what I said?
I said we have done it before.
In order to own a fully auto youbhave to jump through regulations..which I'm fine with.

Those regulations are a violation of the 2nd amendment, and several supreme court rulings. You can't require them in order to exercise a right.

nah. Just need scotus to swing the other way and change some rulings. There would be nothing you could do to stop them.

The constitution stops them

See what the current scotus has opened up woth their rulings? Lol..

No. The 2nd is perfectly clear. Abortion is not mentioned at all in the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is.

Sure we could. Who gives a ****ing shit about heller and your opinion.

I've not offered an opinion. I've pointed out constitutional law.

We can as a society do whatever the **** we wanted to if we wanted to.

Then pass an amendment. We of course both know you do not have anywhere even remotely close to enough support to do so.

Your rights are man made up nonsense to give some sort of "order" to the world so society can function and progress.

lol

The reality is the universe doesn't give a ****ing shit about your rights.

It doesn't give a ****ing shit about your opinions.

Rights are whatever we as humans deem we feel they should be. Hence why different countries have different rights for their people..

And humans in the US have determined we have the right to keep and bear arms. Too bad for you.

****ing roe didn't teach you shit huh?

Roe was incorrectly decided. It had zero constitutional basis. It was correctly overturned on constitutional grounds. You have zero chance of doing so with Heller.

That's something none of you can get around. It says ARM not gun, and your opinion of what arm means is subjective.

I have not offered any opinions. Arm means gun. Words mean things.

Lol..****ing people

I know. You should really not discuss topics you don't know anything about.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

When you or others make the claim "guns ARE designed to kill" I will be reminding you that that statement has been repeatedly proven false.

I didn't see anything proving that false. Would you point me to the post that shows the proof, or restate it?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Here's my opinion, previously posted:

Let's examine why man needed to injure and kill; why was it necessary to kill and injure?​

​

To protect families and homes. To wage war to protect resources and territory. To kill for food. Since all of prehistory.​

​

The gun was designed as better technology to PROTECT people and keep them alive. The need had always been there and man had always designed weapons to protect themselves and those things.​

​

So should man not have invented a better means of protection? For getting food? Yes? No? If no, why not?​

​

Who denies that this is accurate, and why, that guns provide valid protection, true to their design and purpose, just like any other weapons that man created for the same purpose, before and since the invention of firearms? Many times guns are effective protection without ever being fired.​

​

Here's a quick example:​

Nice neighborhood in Seattle, an attacker climbed up to a balcony, entered thru sliding glass doors, with an ax. The husband went and got his handgun and drove the attacker from the apt. He protected his family with a firearm, and didnt even need to fire it.​

It was designed to do that, too.

 

[rahl]

I didn't see anything proving that false. Would you point me to the post that shows the proof, or restate it?

The existence of a single firearm that is NOT designed to kill, disproves the categorical claim "guns are designed to kill"

Thus, the browning BT99 refutes the claim.

 

[jpevans]

Yes, and telling us how boring it is.

I took it as a little more selective.