Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Bern80]

Purpose is part of it, yes. If something only has the applicable purpose of killing massive amounts of people (nukes), they should be highly regulated. You could, of course, just have one for decoration or because you are a war nut, or some other strange reason. But the only purpose is to kill people, and hence we regulate them.

No that is not the purpose. I can prove it because I use guns for things other than killing things. I told you what a gun is designed to do. Apparently that is one area that escapes your superior intellect. The purpose of the instrument itself is not to kill. As I said, even a gun by itself, can't kill. It also has to have bullett.

Not quite, no. We don't buy bleach for the purpose of fueling our cars. Why? Because of the properties of bleach. Purposes of items obviously have a lot to do with the properties of said items.

Sure all things have some type of purpose. A machine, which a gun can be defined as, is designed to accomplish something, but kill isn't it.

 

[Shogun]

By telling Bern that?

No, actually you tried to make fun of my argument, by misinterpreting my argument and making fun of that. It seems to be your MO. By the way, no mention of how I kicked your ass in the other thread and you ran away like the little bitch you are?

Thought not.

You kicked MY ass?

of what thread do you speak, child?



I realize that it's beyond you how your same arguement can be held against blades too so I won't rub the salt into your wounds and deeper than I already have.

 

[Larkinn]

No that is not the purpose. I can prove it because I use guns for things other than killing things.

And I use marijuana as a lawn decoration. "No officer don't arrest me, I'm not doing anything illegal...". Right.

I told you what a gun is designed to do. Apparently that is one area that escapes your superior intellect. The purpose of the instrument itself is not to kill. As I said, even a gun by itself, can't kill. It also has to have bullett.

This is a stupid argument. Its designed to kill with the help of a bullet.

Sure all things have some type of purpose. A machine, which a gun can be defined as, is designed to accomplish something, but kill isn't it.

So what are guns designed to do then?

 

[Larkinn]

You kicked MY ass?

of what thread do you speak, child?



I realize that it's beyond you how your same arguement can be held against blades too so I won't rub the salt into your wounds and deeper than I already have.

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=52862&page=14

Aww, what happened did you lobotomize yourself to spare yourself the embarassment of remembering that thread?

Oh, no, please don't spare me any embarassment. Try as hard as you can to outwit me Shogun. It'll be cute

Like how cars are the same as guns? Lmao...keep on trying there, boyo. I already gave you a better analogy, but instead you want to stick on to the cars on. Man even with me helping you out you still can't come up with a competent argument.

 

[Dr Grump]

Of course a gun is designed to kill. that is it's sole purpose. There are the slight exceptions of guns specifically produced for target shooting, but outsida that, the vast majority are designed to kill..

 

[Shogun]

speaking of marijuana...


do you put head shops through this same kind of rigor?


did we eveer figure out how Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain boys were supposed to wrestle the cougar to the ground before using kindergarten safety scissors to cut out the meat for dinner?

 

[Dr Grump]

I really love the car analogy..lol..lol..lol..because, you know, the main purpose of cars it to kill people/things....lol lol lol lol lol. One of the most piss weak arguments of the gunnies...

 

[Shogun]

I really love the car analogy..lol..lol..lol..because, you know, the main purpose of cars it to kill people/things....lol lol lol lol lol. One of the most piss weak arguments of the gunnies...

The main purpose of a car probably doesn't matter to a crash victim whose brains are spread along a quarter mile of the interstate. The fact remains that you don't bat an eye at a machine just as likely to kill as long as it keeps your silly ass from walking while pretending that a stark minority of gun owners are reflective of the rest of us.


But, it's not like you have ever been known for being consistent.

 

[Shogun]

Hey, looks like the CDC is CARAZY enough to compare vehicles and guns too!






Although the number of deaths from motor-vehicle crashes has exceeded those from firearms, since 1968, differences in the number of deaths have declined

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/m0023655/m0023655.asp

Hey look.. they even drew a picture so new zealanders could comprehend the info!

 

[Larkinn]

The main purpose of a car probably doesn't matter to a crash victim whose brains are spread along a quarter mile of the interstate.

Wow, congrats on the emotional appeal more often.

The fact remains that you don't bat an eye at a machine just as likely to kill as long as it keeps your silly ass from walking while pretending that a stark minority of gun owners are reflective of the rest of us.

Alright lets ban all cars. What happens?

1) Doctors visit? You walk or don't go.

2) Emergency room? Sucks for you.

3) Trade? Nope. Not sure how food is going to get into the city without cars, but Shogun I'm sure can think of some way to keep people from starving.

Those more than make up for the deaths caused by accidents.

But, it's not like you have ever been known for being consistent.

LMAO...oh, you are funny boy.

 

[Larkinn]

Hey, looks like the CDC is CARAZY enough to compare vehicles and guns too!






Although the number of deaths from motor-vehicle crashes has exceeded those from firearms, since 1968, differences in the number of deaths have declined

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/m0023655/m0023655.asp

Hey look.. they even drew a picture so new zealanders could comprehend the info!

Wait, you can compare them? Wow, who would have guessed.

Wait, is it a comparison of banning them and which one will save more lives? Nope. So does it have any relevance? Nope.

But keep grasping there. I'm sure you'll be able to find a decent argument soon! If at 32342nd you don't suceed, try try again!

 

[Shogun]

Wow, congrats on the emotional appeal more often.


are you fucking kidding me? Arent you the guy appealing to the emotions of people who might get shot? Damn, dude.. funny how YOU get to make a case for the safety of the public but mothers against drink drivers are just shit out of luck.


Alright lets ban all cars. What happens?
1) Doctors visit? You walk or don't go.
2) Emergency room? Sucks for you.
3) Trade? Nope. Not sure how food is going to get into the city without cars, but Shogun I'm sure can think of some way to keep people from starving.
Those more than make up for the deaths caused by accidents.


1) doctors visit a household like they used to. DOH! didn't think that one through, didya?

2) Ambulances are a stark minority of vehicles. Sure, keep the emergency vehicles since the road would be clear of congestion anyway AND the path to the Hospital would be quicker... KABLAMMO!

3) yea... because every major city popped out from no where as soon as the internal combustion engine was invented! HA!

hey, the point is not to illustrate how we don't want vehicles.. the point is illustrating how your selective concern for public safety is a total fucking farce.

Ill let you email the CDC and tell them to stop comparing guns and vehicle deaths.

 

[Shogun]

Wait, you can compare them? Wow, who would have guessed.

Wait, is it a comparison of banning them and which one will save more lives? Nope. So does it have any relevance? Nope.

But keep grasping there. I'm sure you'll be able to find a decent argument soon! If at 32342nd you don't suceed, try try again!

HA!

don't stutter, dude... I realize iv'e got you flinching by now but shit.. at least TRY to make sense, eh?


so, according to the CDC VEHICLES are clearly the hazardous element to our society...


Gosh, gomer... how many excuses can you come up with to make up for your selective concern??


I'm sure M.A.D.D. would LOVe to hear all about it!

 

[Dr Grump]

The main purpose of a car probably doesn't matter to a crash victim whose brains are spread along a quarter mile of the interstate. The fact remains that you don't bat an eye at a machine just as likely to kill as long as it keeps your silly ass from walking while pretending that a stark minority of gun owners are reflective of the rest of us.


But, it's not like you have ever been known for being consistent.

This is why your gun culture sucks. This guy should have stayed inside and waited for the police. Wild West mentality. Even AFTER being told by the 911 despatcher to stay inside, he kills the guys. Idiot, idiot, idiot.
http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2007/11/tip-of-the-day.html

 

[Larkinn]

are you fucking kidding me? Arent you the guy appealing to the emotions of people who might get shot? Damn, dude.. funny how YOU get to make a case for the safety of the public but mothers against drink drivers are just shit out of luck.

No, I'm not appealing to their emotions. I'm appealing to public safety and I support whichever one will kill less people. I am looking at the aggregate. You, however, are stupidly picking one particular example and saying "ohhh nooo, poor woman, what will you tell her when her child dies from a car accident". Safety of the public is NOT the same as an emotional appeal.

1) doctors visit a household like they used to. DOH! didn't think that one through, didya?

They used to visit households by driving there, genius .

2) Ambulances are a stark minority of vehicles. Sure, keep the emergency vehicles since the road would be clear of congestion anyway AND the path to the Hospital would be quicker... KABLAMMO!

Ah, so now you want to bring in specifics, eh? Alright, we'll keep ambulances on the road.

3) yea... because every major city popped out from no where as soon as the internal combustion engine was invented! HA!

1920 population of the US: 100 million.

Population now: 300 million.

Think there might be just a little bit of difference feeding massively more people?

hey, the point is not to illustrate how we don't want vehicles.. the point is illustrating how your selective concern for public safety is a total fucking farce.

Yeah and I've shown you how they are different. This really shouldn't be hard for you to understand.

Ill let you email the CDC and tell them to stop comparing guns and vehicle deaths.

They are comparing them in the context of banning one or the other? No? Thought not.

 

[Larkinn]

HA!

don't stutter, dude... I realize iv'e got you flinching by now but shit.. at least TRY to make sense, eh?


so, according to the CDC VEHICLES are clearly the hazardous element to our society...


Gosh, gomer... how many excuses can you come up with to make up for your selective concern??


I'm sure M.A.D.D. would LOVe to hear all about it!

Err, what?

Yes, cars kill more people than guns. That was never argued. But thanks for getting more stats to support a position that was never in doubt.

Try concentrating on what we actually are arguing. LMAO...yes Shogun, you have me terrified. Just like last time when you proclaimed you were winning only to stop arguing and then not respond when I brought that thread up

Man, you are funny.

 

[Shogun]

This is why your gun culture sucks. This guy should have stayed inside and waited for the police. Wild West mentality. Even AFTER being told by the 911 despatcher to stay inside, he kills the guys. Idiot, idiot, idiot.
http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2007/11/tip-of-the-day.html

monday morning quarterbacking sure is easy, isn't it? And, honestly, no one in the states gives a damn about some dude in new zealand who has an opinion of our gun rights. I've posted two articles above where individuals were protected by having guns available. You would have then die just to feel righteous about an illogical gun position. After all, even nations without guns STILL have crime.


but, just so you know.. yo don't ever have to set foot on this land if it bothers you so much.

 

[Shogun]

Err, what?

Yes, cars kill more people than guns. That was never argued. But thanks for getting more stats to support a position that was never in doubt.

Try concentrating on what we actually are arguing. LMAO...yes Shogun, you have me terrified. Just like last time when you proclaimed you were winning only to stop arguing and then not respond when I brought that thread up

Man, you are funny.

HA!

Man, if you wanna remind of which thread that is i'll be happy to reconsider.. I mean, did you really think you are eternally interesting after I hold your head under water all day?

sheesh.

But hey, the CDC thought vehicles and guns were worth comparing so your anti-gun pussies can cry on their shoulder when it turns out that your goofy little rant about death caused by guns is less relevant than death caused by the vehicle getting your ass from place to place.


?Did you ever remind me how taxis never kill people, dude? or, were you.. avoiding.. that...

 

[Larkinn]

monday morning quarterbacking sure is easy, isn't it? And, honestly, no one in the states gives a damn about some dude in new zealand who has an opinion of our gun rights. I've posted two articles above where individuals were protected by having guns available. You would have then die just to feel righteous about an illogical gun position. After all, even nations without guns STILL have crime.


but, just so you know.. yo don't ever have to set foot on this land if it bothers you so much.

Wait the claim was that you can only commit crimes with a gun? No? Then kindly stop arguing against that claim. I know, I know, its a lot easier to focus on watered down idiotic offshoots of what we are actually claiming, but if you really put your mind to it you can maybe address something hard.

 

[Larkinn]

HA!

Man, if you wanna remind of which thread that is i'll be happy to reconsider.. I mean, did you really think you are eternally interesting after I hold your head under water all day?

sheesh.

Post #84 which you just happened to "miss".

But hey, the CDC thought vehicles and guns were worth comparing so your anti-gun pussies can cry on their shoulder when it turns out that your goofy little rant about death caused by guns is less relevant than death caused by the vehicle getting your ass from place to place.

They were discussing which kills the most people in America. They were NOT discussing which it would be most logical to ban. If they were, one would have been thrown out immediatelly since they have far more intelligence than you do.

?Did you ever remind me how taxis never kill people, dude? or, were you.. avoiding.. that...

Yes taxis kill people. How does that have to do with anything? Oh wait, it doesn't.