Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[M14 Shooter]

I don't mind if my neighbour has a shotgun, a rifle or a handgun...
But I have to admit I would feel a bit more concerned if my neighbour had a fully automatic weapon.

Why?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide arms to individuals for the purpose of individual use. Machine guns are not normally individual weapons, rather crew served.

Except that, legally, the M16/M4 series of weapons are machineguns, and are individual weapons. I believe the M249 is also an individual weapon, which is, obviously, alos a machinegun.

Never mind that there's no way to effectively argue that if an M16/M249 is covered by the 2nd as a weapon useful to the miliia, an M60 or M249 isnt.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except that guns have only ONE purpose and thats to kill things

I've fired tens of thousands of rounds from my guns and have yet to kill anything.
Have I been using my guns improperly?

 

[Shogun]

Except that guns have only ONE purpose and thats to kill things. Household cleaners are used to clean. Cars are used to transport. Each can cause death, but they have other purposes which help society.

What are a guns other purposes?

PERSONAL DEFENSE

why else to cops carry them?


Do you deny the historic prevelance of self defense in American history?


and I didn't mention household chems. But, i'll remind you, we functioned as a soceity with horses too. Why arent you making the case that vehicles make it easier to kill people since we can all ride a horse? Why? because cars dont kill people; people in cars kill people. Similarly, guns don't kill people; PEOPLE with guns kill people.

 

[Larkinn]

PERSONAL DEFENSE

why else to cops carry them?

By...killing people.

Do you deny the historic prevelance of self defense in American history?

That people generally defend themselves when attacked? That has nothing to do with being an American.

and I didn't mention household chems. But, i'll remind you, we functioned as a soceity with horses too. Why arent you making the case that vehicles make it easier to kill people since we can all ride a horse? Why? because cars dont kill people; people in cars kill people. Similarly, guns don't kill people; PEOPLE with guns kill people.

The average American commute today is around 50 miles to go to work. Have fun doing that on a horse.

 

[Shogun]

]By...killing people.

um, COPS carry guns in order to kill people, eh? yup,you sure do see widespread epidemic of killer cops out collecting civilian heads! That is clearly the standard behaviour of cops.


That people generally defend themselves when attacked? That has nothing to do with being an American.

the fuck it doesn't. Why else do we have a second amendment? Do you need a list of FF quotes on self defense? What period of American history DIDNT have guns around? Can you kill a fucking bear in the mountains with a pocket knife? Don't tread on me, remember? Personal defense has everything to do with being an American




The average American commute today is around 50 miles to go to work. Have fun doing that on a horse.


oh.. so that 50 mile commute is more important than yearly deaths caused by vehicles? What amazing priorities you have! Way to allow for as much consideration necessary despite the fact of yearly vehicle deaths. Lemme guess.. You drive a car.

 

[Larkinn]

]By...killing people.

um, COPS carry guns in order to kill people, eh? yup,you sure do see widespread epidemic of killer cops out collecting civilian heads! That is clearly the standard behaviour of cops.

Tell me how else are they used for self defense.

That people generally defend themselves when attacked? That has nothing to do with being an American.

the fuck it doesn't. Why else do we have a second amendment? Do you need a list of FF quotes on self defense? What period of American history DIDNT have guns around? Can you kill a fucking bear in the mountains with a pocket knife? Don't tread on me, remember? Personal defense has everything to do with being an American

Self defense from the state . I don't think whatever guns they had back then were very useful if someone tried to rob you.

The average American commute today is around 50 miles to go to work. Have fun doing that on a horse.[/B]

oh.. so that 50 mile commute is more important than yearly deaths caused by vehicles? What amazing priorities you have! Way to allow for as much consideration necessary despite the fact of yearly vehicle deaths. Lemme guess.. You drive a car.

[/quote]

Yes, it is. Its well established in this country that death has a monetary value. Getting rid of cars would destroy our economy. If you want to save 50k lives there are FAR cheaper and easier ways of doing so.

There are better examples for your side than cars. Its hilarious to watch you and the rest of the gun nuts try to make this asinine analogy work.

And do less guessing and more thinking. Perhaps then you can say something close to accurate. I live in NYC, no I don't drive a car. I walk pretty much everywhere I go. However my worldview encompases more than just my own experiences.

 

[Shogun]

Tell me how else are they used for self defense.

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/527418.html

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/12/28/suspect-intrusion-dies-wound/


how many more do you want?



Self defense from the state . I don't think whatever guns they had back then were very useful if someone tried to rob you.

uh, no.. self defense from the general reality of life. Again, gan you kill and skin a bear with a pocket knife? You DO realize that our history wasn't all pavement and convenience stores, right?




Yes, it is. Its well established in this country that death has a monetary value. Getting rid of cars would destroy our economy. If you want to save 50k lives there are FAR cheaper and easier ways of doing so.

No, it may CHANGE our economy but cars, and 50 mile commutes, are not INTEGRAL to commerce. History proves as much. You are making an excuse for driving despite its yearly casualty rate and won't extend the same for guns. Again, I assume you enjoy driving rather than huffing it.


There are better examples for your side than cars. Its hilarious to watch you and the rest of the gun nuts try to make this asinine analogy work.


about as asinine as watching people on your side deny the second amendment, eh? Or, in this case, the history of the US. Not to mention minimalizing the value of life that is extinguished by a 3 ton mode of transportation while crying that guns have no social value besides a killing rampage.



And do less guessing and more thinking. Perhaps then you can say something close to accurate. I live in NYC, no I don't drive a car. I walk pretty much everywhere I go. However my worldview encompases more than just my own experiences.


Hey, we can both talk shit. clearly, there are no vehicle deaths in NYC. uh, yea. and, chances are, you are not a virgin to a car seat. In fact, have you ever taken a taxi? Have taxi's EVER KILLED A MOTHERFUCKER?

Indeed... your worldview is the standard by which all 'mericans should conform to.

 

[Larkinn]

Tell me how else are they used for self defense.

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/527418.html

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/12/28/suspect-intrusion-dies-wound/


how many more do you want?

The first one is threatening to kill someone, the second is the gun killing someone. Yes, guns kill people. Thats my whole point.

Self defense from the state . I don't think whatever guns they had back then were very useful if someone tried to rob you.

uh, no.. self defense from the general reality of life. Again, gan you kill and skin a bear with a pocket knife? You DO realize that our history wasn't all pavement and convenience stores, right?

Ah, well then the amendment no longer applies as it was written. If its self defense from bears you want, I think you'll prolly be alright nowadays.

No, it may CHANGE our economy but cars, and 50 mile commutes, are not INTEGRAL to commerce. History proves as much. You are making an excuse for driving despite its yearly casualty rate and won't extend the same for guns. Again, I assume you enjoy driving rather than huffing it.

Cars aren't integral to commerce, they are integral to the way our economy is set up .

All those houses in the suburbs around cities where there aren't professional jobs suddenly become worthless. Value each life at $1 million, and the value of the houses vastly vastly outstrips that. Oh, and where are those people going to move too?

Again, dumbass, I live in NYC. I rarely even take the subway, much less feel the need to drive anywhere, much less have the ability to drive anywhere.

about as asinine as watching people on your side deny the second amendment, eh? Or, in this case, the history of the US. Not to mention minimalizing the value of life that is extinguished by a 3 ton mode of transportation while crying that guns have no social value besides a killing rampage.

So is your claim that guns can't be regulated? You have a right to arms? So why not legalize nukes?

And no I'm not minimalizing the value of the loss when someone dies in a car. Its still a tragedy, but its not worth ruining the lives of most people who depend on cars, AND shitting the economy down the toilet to save those lives.

Its hilarious that you keep trying to make this work.

Hey, we can both talk shit. clearly, there are no vehicle deaths in NYC. uh, yea. and, chances are, you are not a virgin to a car seat. In fact, have you ever taken a taxi? Have taxi's EVER KILLED A MOTHERFUCKER?

I have driven a car, and I have ridden in a taxi, and neither are the reasoin why I am arguing that its asinine to ban cars. Was my argument that there are no vehicle deaths in NYC? No, obviously not. By the way according to RGS somehow taxis aren't cars, so they would be allowed.

Indeed... your worldview is the standard by which all 'mericans should conform to.

 

[Larkinn]

Jesus Christ...I'll shorten your pain of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Cars obviously don't fit the analogy, and if you had an ounce of intelligence in you, you would be able to see that.

Cigs do. As does alcohol.

My problem with the gun arguments isn't that I think guns should be banned. I don't. Its that the reasons why guns shouldn't be banned are generally so unmitigatingly idiotic that its hard to resist tearing them apart. I support whichever will kill less people. I don't think guns have a societal reason except for self defense. There are studies/analogies that show that gun bans reduce crime, and ones that show they have no effect or increase crime. The science on this is not very well done and all over the place.

But really? Guns don't kill people, people do? Gee, well guns help a hell of a lot. Otherwise you wouldn't be bitching and whining about how you needed them for self defense.

Why do I want to infringe on your right to self defense? Because others have a right not to get shot by that weapon you claimed would only be used in self defense.

Its a hard subject, but for fucks sake get some better arguments.

 

[Shogun]

Jesus Christ...I'll shorten your pain of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Cars obviously don't fit the analogy, and if you had an ounce of intelligence in you, you would be able to see that.

Cigs do. As does alcohol.


Oh well, CLEARLY we should all run our ideas by you in order to find validity. Hell, if you cant argue against yearly vehicular deaths that you rationalize why not insist that they just dont count? Guess what, to a mother who just lost a kid whose brains decorate a street it probably counts. But hey, those people are not you and, clearly, when you decide what does and doesn't count the rest of the united states stops to take notes!



My problem with the gun arguments isn't that I think guns should be banned. I don't. Its that the reasons why guns shouldn't be banned are generally so unmitigatingly idiotic that its hard to resist tearing them apart. I support whichever will kill less people. I don't think guns have a societal reason except for self defense. There are studies/analogies that show that gun bans reduce crime, and ones that show they have no effect or increase crime. The science on this is not very well done and all over the place.


idiotic is an opinion statement. Guess what my side thinks about your arguments. guess how the supreme court is going to side with.

Kill less people? as long as there is no commute involved? You obviously dont hunt because guns serve the same multipurpose as KNIVES. Is it REALLY valid to say that the ONLY purpose for a blade is to kill people? It happens, you know. Maybe not on scale with yearly driving deaths but hey... if guns kill people then so too much knives, right?

I've given you two out of MULTIPLE examples of people using guns to defned their homes. Are you going to admit that, in their position, you'd react the same way or would you like to go on the record saying that you'd let your GF get gang raped because you want to disbelieve that shitty things happen in life?


But really? Guns don't kill people, people do? Gee, well guns help a hell of a lot. Otherwise you wouldn't be bitching and whining about how you needed them for self defense.

so to do cars then. Like I said, cityboy.. do taxi's kill people? Is your transportational convenience WORTH the death that is allowed by keeping vehicles around?



Why do I want to infringe on your right to self defense? Because others have a right not to get shot by that weapon you claimed would only be used in self defense.



Then others should not be breaking into my house. There is no correlation that shows a gun will make any individual kill someone. Those who already are willing to kill will do so with whatever tool is handy. the EASY majority of gun owners don't kill people. you might as well be making the same arguement that Jack Thomspon makes against video games and the city of san fran made against city lights book store.

It really is the Tipper Gore fraction of liberalism that makes the left every bit as horrid as the far right.


Its a hard subject, but for fucks sake get some better arguments.

suck my dick. It really doesn't matter to me that you want to disqualify an arguement that conveys your bias for personal convenience. Thousands die every year because America understands that its the INDIVIDUAL, not the tool, that is responsible for casualty numbers. You can pick and choose your personal application, and lord knows that no one is forcing a gun into your hand, but the rest of us will go ahead and remember that we have a second amendment.

thanks anyway though.

 

[Bern80]

Except that guns have only ONE purpose and thats to kill things. Household cleaners are used to clean. Cars are used to transport. Each can cause death, but they have other purposes which help society.

What are a guns other purposes?

So somethings purpose determines whether it should be regulated or not? That makes a ton of sense.

Purpose is determined by the user. If you want to start getting into technical aspects of firearms, a gun's purpose is to ignite and direct a bullet. A gun can't do anything w/o a bullet. A bullets purpose can be many. Hollow points are designed to cause excessive damage to the target, to kill quickly. The application where that comes into play where the users pupose is concerned is hunting (let's face it, a killer isn't thinking about whether he brought the right bulletts along). Shotgun shells can have a dozen different shell types all for different purposes, all for the exact same gun. If I'm targeting shooting I choose one type, if I'm duck hunting I choose another, deer hunting another.

the point is I have determined the purpose, which for me usually is meat in the freezer. that is my purpose in using a gun. it can even be argued that many some types of guns are used for the soul purpose of saving lives, such as snow cannons.

 

[Shogun]

Hey bern.. did you know that people were actually KILLED before guns were invented? It's the strangest thing. I coulda SWORE murder was invented on the same day as blackpowder.

 

[Larkinn]

Oh well, CLEARLY we should all run our ideas by you in order to find validity. Hell, if you cant argue against yearly vehicular deaths that you rationalize why not insist that they just dont count? Guess what, to a mother who just lost a kid whose brains decorate a street it probably counts. But hey, those people are not you and, clearly, when you decide what does and doesn't count the rest of the united states stops to take notes!

I'm sorry, when did I say they don't count? Oh wait, I didn't. Thanks for LYING again Shogun. What a surprise. Its a tradeoff, dumbshit.

idiotic is an opinion statement. Guess what my side thinks about your arguments. guess how the supreme court is going to side with.

Congratulations, you can't make coherent arguments. Sorry but when something is that illogical idiotic isn't really an opinion. There ARE decent arguments with your side, and if you weren't such a dumbshit perhaps you could make some of them.

Kill less people? as long as there is no commute involved? You obviously dont hunt because guns serve the same multipurpose as KNIVES. Is it REALLY valid to say that the ONLY purpose for a blade is to kill people? It happens, you know. Maybe not on scale with yearly driving deaths but hey... if guns kill people then so too much knives, right?

Really? You can use guns to help prepare food? Thought not.

I've given you two out of MULTIPLE examples of people using guns to defned their homes. Are you going to admit that, in their position, you'd react the same way or would you like to go on the record saying that you'd let your GF get gang raped because you want to disbelieve that shitty things happen in life?

Wow examples of something I never claimed never happened . That really supports your pov. Gee, I wonder why I think your arguments are idiotic. Next are you going to pull that ace card, that the some people here think I'm dumb, so I must be?

Would you like to go on the record saying you'd let someone buy legal guns and kill those massacred at VT? Say that to their parents. Emotional appeal works on both sides of this coin, only you are too stupid to realize that.

so to do cars then. Like I said, cityboy.. do taxi's kill people? Is your transportational convenience WORTH the death that is allowed by keeping vehicles around?

You do realize that my arguments for cars are because of the massive amount of people for who cars is a necessary way of life. One which, without it, they could not go to doctors, schools, work, etc, etc. Our current society is predicated on the use of cars . If you really can't discern the massive difference between that and guns, there is very little hope for you.

Then others should not be breaking into my house. There is no correlation that shows a gun will make any individual kill someone. Those who already are willing to kill will do so with whatever tool is handy.

So why are there more homicides with guns than any other weapon?

Thought so.

the EASY majority of gun owners don't kill people. you might as well be making the same arguement that Jack Thomspon makes against video games and the city of san fran made against city lights book store.

It really is the Tipper Gore fraction of liberalism that makes the left every bit as horrid as the far right.

Not quite, no.

suck my dick. It really doesn't matter to me that you want to disqualify an arguement that conveys your bias for personal convenience.

You are a fucking moron. Despite your hopes and dreams my argument has nothing to do with my bias for personal convenience . What part of I don't use a car don't you understand? Besides that, you are making up false motives for what I am saying. My arguments are valid, but instead of responding to them you make up some bullshit about WHY I am arguing them, instead of responding to the argument. Its called an Ad hominem fallacy.

Thousands die every year because America understands that its the INDIVIDUAL, not the tool, that is responsible for casualty numbers. You can pick and choose your personal application, and lord knows that no one is forcing a gun into your hand, but the rest of us will go ahead and remember that we have a second amendment.

K, so can we legalize nukes as well?

 

[Larkinn]

So somethings purpose determines whether it should be regulated or not? That makes a ton of sense.

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.

Purpose is determined by the user.

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.

 

[Larkinn]

Hey bern.. did you know that people were actually KILLED before guns were invented? It's the strangest thing. I coulda SWORE murder was invented on the same day as blackpowder.

Wow, really? Its so amazing that you would bring this up considering nobody has argued anything different . Oh, but I guess it would be too much to ask that you actually respond to the arguments.

 

[Shogun]

I'm sorry, when did I say they don't count? Oh wait, I didn't. Thanks for LYING again Shogun. What a surprise. Its a tradeoff, dumbshit.


are you fucking kidding me? Isn't it a little soon to start crying all over the place?

Cars obviously don't fit the analogy, and if you had an ounce of intelligence in you, you would be able to see that.

Indeed, IM the one who is lying. clearly.


Congratulations, you can't make coherent arguments. Sorry but when something is that illogical idiotic isn't really an opinion. There ARE decent arguments with your side, and if you weren't such a dumbshit perhaps you could make some of them.


Again, what you consider valid really deasn't amount to much considering your inconsistent application according to your personal enjoyment of vehicular transportation. You go tell a mother who just lost their kid to a highway accident how idiotic it is to compare the tool that is a car with the tool that is a gun. She will probably agree with you and buy you a beer instead of taking a swing at you.

Really? You can use guns to help prepare food? Thought not.

Sure, it was probably pretty hard to eat the fucking deer while it's running away from you, eh dude? I mean, Im sure Ethan Allen was THE MAN but i'm not sure even Davy Crocket could pull that one off.

Say, killing the animal is probably not an integral part of food prep! Meat just magically appeared out of the sky until tofu was invented.




Wow examples of something I never claimed never happened . That really supports your pov. Gee, I wonder why I think your arguments are idiotic. Next are you going to pull that ace card, that the some people here think I'm dumb, so I must be?


No, it's not clear that you are dumb by the opinions of those who post here. You do enough to make that case all on your own, buddy.


NEVER happened, eh?

03-19-2008 11:35 AM
Larkinn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shogun View Post
]By...killing people.

me: um, COPS carry guns in order to kill people, eh? yup,you sure do see widespread epidemic of killer cops out collecting civilian heads! That is clearly the standard behaviour of cops.

You: Tell me how else are they used for self defense.


Hey, evidence is a bitch, eh?


Would you like to go on the record saying you'd let someone buy legal guns and kill those massacred at VT? Say that to their parents. Emotional appeal works on both sides of this coin, only you are too stupid to realize that.

Killing a person is against the law. Im quite confident that the killer in VT does not reflect the rest of the gun owning people in VT who are not out killing people. So, yes, I will go on the record and state that I have no qualms with selling legal guns to citizens of VT.

Would you like to go on the record again and tell me what the exchange rate is for a human life as long as they are killed by a car and not a gun?



You do realize that my arguments for cars are because of the massive amount of people for who cars is a necessary way of life. One which, without it, they could not go to doctors, schools, work, etc, etc. Our current society is predicated on the use of cars . If you really can't discern the massive difference between that and guns, there is very little hope for you.


And, likewise, MASSIVE amounts of people depend on guns for protection, entertainment and food.. without which, they could be killed, SEE ABOVE ACTUAL EXAMPLES OF GUNS PREVENTIC SUCH, would have to deny their American Heritage, and may not be able to make ends meet on the dinner table. sorry if YOUR life seems more important to you than theirs are to them. Clearly, you are god and must be worshipped.

And again, vehicles are about as static of a social requirement as black and white televisions and AM radio. You can make excuses for YOUR accepted death machine all you want.. WE still have the second amendment.

I hope you realize that your approval really is necessary for me to sleep at night. For real. If you think there is little hope for me the I really can look forward to a week of stressed out insomnia. for realz.





So why are there more homicides with guns than any other weapon?


why are there more deaths by vehicle than any other mode of transportation?

yea.. though so.





Not quite, no.

you may not want to believe it, clearly you never seek to polish your own turd, but you really are making the same arguement for restriction based on bullshit assumptions about a threat to the public as Thompson and San Fran.. I'll even toss Bruce on the fire too. After all, saying motherfucker on stage decays the moral fabric of our nation and MUST BE BANNED FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY!




You are a fucking moron. Despite your hopes and dreams my argument has nothing to do with my bias for personal convenience . What part of I don't use a car don't you understand? Besides that, you are making up false motives for what I am saying. My arguments are valid, but instead of responding to them you make up some bullshit about WHY I am arguing them, instead of responding to the argument. Its called an Ad hominem fallacy.

Sure it does. And, just so you know, I really don't give a fuck if you wont admit it. The FACT of yearly vehicle deaths remain a constant and you don't care as long as a taxi can take you to work. Further, we'll see what the supreme court says about the validity of your arguement. Care to make a wager on THAT? Ad hominem fallacy? Indeed, it probably isn't ironic AS FUCK that you cry about ad hominems at the end of the very same paragraph in which you called me a fucking moron.

really.

your consistency is as solid as a turd filled, shit flavoured jello mold.



K, so can we legalize nukes as well?


ahh.. the ole "can we have nukes" argument...




yea, CLEARLY you are not feeling the force of my AWSOME logic.

Stealth bombers probably count now too, right? Lemme guess... chemical weapons are ARMS, right?

 

[Shogun]

Wow, really? Its so amazing that you would bring this up considering nobody has argued anything different . Oh, but I guess it would be too much to ask that you actually respond to the arguments.

Hey, I just wanted to clear that up a little before you start telling me how dangerous my butter knives are to society.

 

[Larkinn]

are you fucking kidding me? Isn't it a little soon to start crying all over the place?

LMFAO...like an argument with you could make me cry? Like our last argument when you declared how much fun it was and then just stopped posting ?

And if you lie I'm going to call you a liar. No crying about that, just calling you out on your tired bullshit.

Indeed, IM the one who is lying. clearly.

Congratulations, you got something right. Gold star for you!

Again, what you consider valid really deasn't amount to much considering your inconsistent application according to your personal enjoyment of vehicular transportation. You go tell a mother who just lost their kid to a highway accident how idiotic it is to compare the tool that is a car with the tool that is a gun. She will probably agree with you and buy you a beer instead of taking a swing at you.

Same old tired lies. Think up something new please. This has nothing to do with my personal enjoyment since I Don't drive cars since I live in NYC . But keep on with the old crap.

You go tell the parents of the kids who were killed during the VT massacre that guns should be legal so it doesn't infringe on your liberty. She will probably agree with you and buy you a beer instead of taking a swing at you.

Gee, and I wonder why I thought your arguments were idiotic. Perhaps because you keep appealing to emotion and other moronic ideas?

Sure, it was probably pretty hard to eat the fucking deer while it's running away from you, eh dude? I mean, Im sure Ethan Allen was THE MAN but i'm not sure even Davy Crocket could pull that one off.

Say, killing the animal is probably not an integral part of food prep! Meat just magically appeared out of the sky until tofu was invented.

LMFAO...because so many people hunt for their food nowadays? By the way, killing an animal is still killing, so that doesn't really get away from my statement that guns are used for killing.

Try again.

No, it's not clear that you are dumb by the opinions of those who post here. You do enough to make that case all on your own, buddy.

NEVER happened, eh?

03-19-2008 11:35 AM
Larkinn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shogun View Post
]By...killing people.

me: um, COPS carry guns in order to kill people, eh? yup,you sure do see widespread epidemic of killer cops out collecting civilian heads! That is clearly the standard behaviour of cops.

You: Tell me how else are they used for self defense.


Hey, evidence is a bitch, eh?

Not really when you are too stupid to understand the evidence.

How ELSE are they used for self defense, NOT including killing someone or threatening to kill someone. Derr.

Killing a person is against the law. Im quite confident that the killer in VT does not reflect the rest of the gun owning people in VT who are not out killing people. So, yes, I will go on the record and state that I have no qualms with selling legal guns to citizens of VT.

Yeah and once hes broken the law the victms are already dead . Big help it was to them.

Would you like to go on the record again and tell me what the exchange rate is for a human life as long as they are killed by a car and not a gun?

When did I ever say one was worth more than the other? Oh wait, I never compared them. Nice lies again Shogun.

And, likewise, MASSIVE amounts of people depend on guns for protection, entertainment and food.. without which, they could be killed, SEE ABOVE ACTUAL EXAMPLES OF GUNS PREVENTIC SUCH, would have to deny their American Heritage, and may not be able to make ends meet on the dinner table. sorry if YOUR life seems more important to you than theirs are to them. Clearly, you are god and must be worshipped.

Wow, entertainment. A right to entertainment now? Pssh, thats not worth very much. Sorry the state took away your toys. Cry me a fuckin river.

Deny their American heritage? Thats rich. Keep making shit up as you go along, maybe you'll hit on a decent argument one of these days.

Curious how many people depend on guns for food? Not how many hunters there are, but how many people hunt for their survival. I doubt very many.

And again, vehicles are about as static of a social requirement as black and white televisions and AM radio. You can make excuses for YOUR accepted death machine all you want.. WE still have the second amendment.

You are retarded. Cars are integral to the US economy. Why do you think prices of everything goes up when gas goes up? Because cars/trucks/etc are used for pretty much everything.

I hope you realize that your approval really is necessary for me to sleep at night. For real. If you think there is little hope for me the I really can look forward to a week of stressed out insomnia. for realz.

Wow, I mean I said that really expecting you to care deeply about it.

why are there more deaths by vehicle than any other mode of transportation?

yea.. though so.

Non sequiter. Obviously. Try anwsering the question, hotshot.

you may not want to believe it, clearly you never seek to polish your own turd, but you really are making the same arguement for restriction based on bullshit assumptions about a threat to the public as Thompson and San Fran.. I'll even toss Bruce on the fire too. After all, saying motherfucker on stage decays the moral fabric of our nation and MUST BE BANNED FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY!

Really? When did I talk about moral fabric? Oh wait I didn't. As i said, not quite, no. You repeating it over and over doesn't make something true.

Sure it does. And, just so you know, I really don't give a fuck if you wont admit it.

Alright, then keep on lying about it.

The FACT of yearly vehicle deaths remain a constant and you don't care as long as a taxi can take you to work.

Keep making shit up, won't you. I rarely ride in taxis either, and never to work.

Further, we'll see what the supreme court says about the validity of your arguement. Care to make a wager on THAT? Ad hominem fallacy? Indeed, it probably isn't ironic AS FUCK that you cry about ad hominems at the end of the very same paragraph in which you called me a fucking moron.

The USSC is actually dealing with intelligent arguments, not the ones you are making. Perhaps you could read their briefs if you wanted to get an idea of what good 2nd amendment arguments are as opposed to the bullshit you keep posting which you somehow, amazingly, think is a decent argument.

And you are a fucking moron. Does that make you wrong? No. That you are wrong is why you are a fucking moron, which I explained. Hence I didn't make an ad hominem. Learn the terms before you try and use them, son.

your consistency is as solid as a turd filled, shit flavoured jello mold.

/pat you. Stunning argument there.

Stealth bombers probably count now too, right? Lemme guess... chemical weapons are ARMS, right?

Is your argument then that nukes aren't arms?

 

[Larkinn]

Hey, I just wanted to clear that up a little before you start telling me how dangerous my butter knives are to society.

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.