Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Bern80]

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..

This will be used a response to Larkinn as well as holds the same position.

How you can't see that that is 100% patent;y false statement is really amazing.
The user defines the purpose, period. If history had shown that guns were predominantly used for target practice, and only occasionally used to kill things, we wouldn't be haveing this conversation.

For the uneducated, here is a crash course in the function of a typical firearm. It has a barrel for the purpose of directing a prejectile. It also has a firing pin which brings us to the other instrument that without renders a gun completely uselss, the bullet. That a gun requires a bullet (which is what actially does the killing) alone invalidates teh argument that the purpose of a gun is to kill. When the trigger is pulled the firing pin is relased. The pin strikes the primer cap of the bullet, which ignites the gunpowder, which must expands due to the heat and pressure which causes the bullet to fire and being guided by the barrell.

As I said before, the purpose of bullet or shell can be many (sequay into crash course on ballistics.) Some bullets may be hollow points, or lead tipped all will react differently upon impact. So if you want to be accurate about this it is really the bullet with the purpose of killing and even then only specific bullets. Shotgun shells are teh best example of the wide variety of purposes bullets can have. A shotgun shell, unlike a bullet, isn't one projectile but many small BBs. The purpose of many smaller projectile over one is to cover a larger area. As an example a bullet may be a half a centimer in diameter. When it is fired from the gun and is fifty feet away it is still only half a centimer in diameter which is makes it difficult to hit a moveing object. So the shotgun shell was invented for that purpose. the instant a shotgun is fired the diameter of teh end of the shell is maye half an inch so that is the size of the shot pattern at the instant of firing. However once that bunch of BBs is say 50 feet away it has expanded to a diameter of maybe 2-3 ft. The draw back is the effective range a shotgun is only a fraction of that of a rifle or handgun. If someone shoots with a shotgun from a hudred yards away you will live to tell about it. If someone shoots you with a rifle from the same distance you probbaly won't.

Anybody who knows anything about firearms at all knows what a completely asanine thing it is to say that a guns purpose is to kill. there is only one wat a gun can kill and that is if person decides taht what they want it to do. Thus the person has decided it's purpose.

 

[Annie]

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Guns just help the bullet go faster.

It seems the SCOTUS is likely to affirm an individual right, with the government being able to regulate.

 

[Bern80]

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

That's right you're from jolly old England and think that one guys actions constitutes the 'gun culture' of the U.S.

What truly awesome and valid argument.

 

[Shogun]

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

uh, post? didnt you JUST say THREAD?

man.. the schizophrenia just isn't helping these days, is it?




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.


myawwww... was that little ad hominem (HA!) supposed to impress someone? Your basic arguement against guns is that they KILL people. Well no shit. Tools often do what the person wielding them make them do. Your examples are the stark monority of gun owners and your fake ass concern of the safety of the public is exposed by your disregard for deaths caused by tools that you personally enjoy.

Clearly, I don't have you on the ground and bleeding here.

clearly.


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


Sure it does.. Your apathy to THOSE deaths take the wind out of your goofy fucking anti-gun ranting.


Have fun knowing that we will always have our guns, El douchita

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Nothing Monday Morning Quarterbacking about it at all. If you actually saw the transcript the despatcher specifically told Horn to stay inside, whereby Horn replied that the despatcher had no right to tell him to do that as the law had recently changed in Texas. Using a gun should be the last resort, not the first. Thus your 2nd is an archaic piece of work IMO.

This is a debating board - not a "I am Shogun and only those people from the United States shall have an opinion on a subject". You trying to belittle my location just shows how weak and vacuous your argument is. You cannot debate on the issue. You play the man not the issue.

Of course nations without guns still have crime, but why do you think the 25+ other Western nations have laws that limit the use of guns? I'll tell you why. We've grown up. The US still needs to grow up in this regard, especially the rednecks who see their guns as an extention of their dicks.
I'll go where I please. And it doesn't bother me hardly at all. I don't have to live there...:O)

 

[Dr Grump]

That's right you're from jolly old England and think that one guys actions constitutes the 'gun culture' of the U.S.

What truly awesome and valid argument.

I'm not from England. What I do know is that the number of firearms deaths per head of population compared to other western nations leaves the rest of us for dead..literally. I think you can call that gun culture. And it's not just a few. how many school shootings have you had in the US over the past 15 years. I'm from NZ. Guess how many we've had? None. Austrlaia? None. England? None. Germany? None. Spain? None. Shall I go on?

You can have your gun culture and your guns. This is a messageboard where people can discuss the merits of certain things. This thread is on guns. This is my opinion, you have yours. Being a gunny your argument will be swayed towards owning guns and having that right as your 2nd amendment guarantees you. I'll give the counter argument. Thus si life

 

[Larkinn]

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

uh, post? didnt you JUST say THREAD?

man.. the schizophrenia just isn't helping these days, is it?

Dumbass. Post #84 in which I already linked to the thread .

Are you really this stupid?

myawwww... was that little ad hominem (HA!) supposed to impress someone?

Did I say you were wrong because you had no intelligence? No? Then it wasn't an Ad hominem. Try again.

Your basic arguement against guns is that they KILL people. Well no shit.

Glory fucking be, you actually understand something.

Tools often do what the person wielding them make them do. Your examples are the stark monority of gun owners and your fake ass concern of the safety of the public is exposed by your disregard for deaths caused by tools that you personally enjoy.

This has nothing to do with my personal enjoyment of cars, since I don't own nor do I drive one . I live in a city, in part, so that I don't have too. In an ideal world, cars wouldn't exist, but our economy, lives, and safety depend on cars and so banning them at this juncture would be incredibly harmful. That you can't see this is absurd. Fake ass concern of the safety of the public? And you know its fake how? Oh right, your just making shit up and based on your made up insults, saying I'm wrong. THAT is what an ad hominem is.

Clearly, I don't have you on the ground and bleeding here.

clearly.

LMAO....do you honestly think you do? Thats hilarious. Man...are you really that retarded?

Sure it does.. Your apathy to THOSE deaths take the wind out of your goofy fucking anti-gun ranting.

Sorry when did I say I didn't care about the deaths? Oh wait, I never did. Another lie from you, what a surprise.

Have fun knowing that we will always have our guns, El douchita

I do know that you will, and I'll also know that you will probably never come up with a good argument for having them, even though I tried to help you out. Hilarious really.

Its sad, really, that you don't get that the number of deaths isn't the only thing to take into account when deciding to ban something or not.

 

[Larkinn]

This will be used a response to Larkinn as well as holds the same position.

How you can't see that that is 100% patent;y false statement is really amazing.
The user defines the purpose, period. If history had shown that guns were predominantly used for target practice, and only occasionally used to kill things, we wouldn't be haveing this conversation.

For the uneducated, here is a crash course in the function of a typical firearm. It has a barrel for the purpose of directing a prejectile. It also has a firing pin which brings us to the other instrument that without renders a gun completely uselss, the bullet. That a gun requires a bullet (which is what actially does the killing) alone invalidates teh argument that the purpose of a gun is to kill. When the trigger is pulled the firing pin is relased. The pin strikes the primer cap of the bullet, which ignites the gunpowder, which must expands due to the heat and pressure which causes the bullet to fire and being guided by the barrell.

As I said before, the purpose of bullet or shell can be many (sequay into crash course on ballistics.) Some bullets may be hollow points, or lead tipped all will react differently upon impact. So if you want to be accurate about this it is really the bullet with the purpose of killing and even then only specific bullets. Shotgun shells are teh best example of the wide variety of purposes bullets can have. A shotgun shell, unlike a bullet, isn't one projectile but many small BBs. The purpose of many smaller projectile over one is to cover a larger area. As an example a bullet may be a half a centimer in diameter. When it is fired from the gun and is fifty feet away it is still only half a centimer in diameter which is makes it difficult to hit a moveing object. So the shotgun shell was invented for that purpose. the instant a shotgun is fired the diameter of teh end of the shell is maye half an inch so that is the size of the shot pattern at the instant of firing. However once that bunch of BBs is say 50 feet away it has expanded to a diameter of maybe 2-3 ft. The draw back is the effective range a shotgun is only a fraction of that of a rifle or handgun. If someone shoots with a shotgun from a hudred yards away you will live to tell about it. If someone shoots you with a rifle from the same distance you probbaly won't.

Anybody who knows anything about firearms at all knows what a completely asanine thing it is to say that a guns purpose is to kill. there is only one wat a gun can kill and that is if person decides taht what they want it to do. Thus the person has decided it's purpose.

Then I take it your for my right to have marijuana as a desk ornament since it should be legal since it has so many other purposes?

 

[Annie]

Then I take it your for my right to have marijuana as a desk ornament since it should be legal since it has so many other purposes?

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[Larkinn]

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

K, can I have a nuke as well? I don't much like Tex....I mean I think they are pretty.

 

[Bern80]

Then I take it your for my right to have marijuana as a desk ornament since it should be legal since it has so many other purposes?

Yes, that would be fine be me. Even if you wanted to smoke it, I would be fine with that. As a general rule I'm not in favor of laws which have the main purpose of trying to protect people from their own stupidity.

Love how you just shift the argument to something else when your original point (a guns purpose is to kill) is shown to be patently false.

 

[Larkinn]

Yes, that would be fine be me. Even if you wanted to smoke it, I would be fine with that. As a general rule I'm not in favor of laws which have the main purpose of trying to protect people from their own stupidity.

Love how you just shift the argument to something else when your original point (a guns purpose is to kill) is shown to be patently false.

I want a nuke then. And I'm not shifting the argument, rather than explain to you why you are wrong (which you prolly won't understand), I am giving you an analogy.

 

[Bern80]

I'm not from England. What I do know is that the number of firearms deaths per head of population compared to other western nations leaves the rest of us for dead..literally. I think you can call that gun culture. And it's not just a few. how many school shootings have you had in the US over the past 15 years. I'm from NZ. Guess how many we've had? None. Austrlaia? None. England? None. Germany? None. Spain? None. Shall I go on?

You can have your gun culture and your guns. This is a messageboard where people can discuss the merits of certain things. This thread is on guns. This is my opinion, you have yours. Being a gunny your argument will be swayed towards owning guns and having that right as your 2nd amendment guarantees you. I'll give the counter argument. Thus si life

And I think you need to ask yourself where you derived your prespective. Of course you think we have this gun obsessed culture when your exposure is limited to to the media. Have lived or spent any time at all in various parts of America that may possibly lend and credance to that position?

 

[Larkinn]

And I think you need to ask yourself where you derived your prespective. Of course you think we have this gun obsessed culture when your exposure is limited to to the media. Have lived or spent any time at all in various parts of America that may possibly lend and credance to that position?

http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/st...st.PerCapita.Gun.Ownership.Rate-2966141.shtml

 

[Bern80]

http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/st...st.PerCapita.Gun.Ownership.Rate-2966141.shtml

so if the rate at which something is owned per capita defines obsession I guess we need to add, toasters, toothbrushes, socks, underwear, you know other things that damn near everyone has to the list of things we're 'obsessed' with.

 

[Dr Grump]

This will be used a response to Larkinn as well as holds the same position.

How you can't see that that is 100% patent;y false statement is really amazing.
The user defines the purpose, period. If history had shown that guns were predominantly used for target practice, and only occasionally used to kill things, we wouldn't be haveing this conversation.

For the uneducated, here is a crash course in the function of a typical firearm. It has a barrel for the purpose of directing a prejectile. It also has a firing pin which brings us to the other instrument that without renders a gun completely uselss, the bullet. That a gun requires a bullet (which is what actially does the killing) alone invalidates teh argument that the purpose of a gun is to kill. When the trigger is pulled the firing pin is relased. The pin strikes the primer cap of the bullet, which ignites the gunpowder, which must expands due to the heat and pressure which causes the bullet to fire and being guided by the barrell.

As I said before, the purpose of bullet or shell can be many (sequay into crash course on ballistics.) Some bullets may be hollow points, or lead tipped all will react differently upon impact. So if you want to be accurate about this it is really the bullet with the purpose of killing and even then only specific bullets. Shotgun shells are teh best example of the wide variety of purposes bullets can have. A shotgun shell, unlike a bullet, isn't one projectile but many small BBs. The purpose of many smaller projectile over one is to cover a larger area. As an example a bullet may be a half a centimer in diameter. When it is fired from the gun and is fifty feet away it is still only half a centimer in diameter which is makes it difficult to hit a moveing object. So the shotgun shell was invented for that purpose. the instant a shotgun is fired the diameter of teh end of the shell is maye half an inch so that is the size of the shot pattern at the instant of firing. However once that bunch of BBs is say 50 feet away it has expanded to a diameter of maybe 2-3 ft. The draw back is the effective range a shotgun is only a fraction of that of a rifle or handgun. If someone shoots with a shotgun from a hudred yards away you will live to tell about it. If someone shoots you with a rifle from the same distance you probbaly won't.

Anybody who knows anything about firearms at all knows what a completely asanine thing it is to say that a guns purpose is to kill. there is only one wat a gun can kill and that is if person decides taht what they want it to do. Thus the person has decided it's purpose.

Strawman. It is up to the person for sure re what the gun does, but the express design structure of a gun is to kill things. I mean, you can't drive it, or eat it, or fly in it, or dress in it, or use it as an airconditioning unit. The bullets do the killing, but when Kalashnikov (sp??) designed the AK47 do you think he was trying to invent a new way of playing tiddlywinks?

 

[Dr Grump]

And I think you need to ask yourself where you derived your prespective. Of course you think we have this gun obsessed culture when your exposure is limited to to the media. Have lived or spent any time at all in various parts of America that may possibly lend and credance to that position?

Yes, I have spent some time in the US - California and Nevada. But that doesn't where I get my perspective from. I get it from messageboards like this, govt stats, and the number of mass shootings you have over there. There also seems to be a certain section of your society that believes the govt cannot be trusted and therefore the populance has to be armed. Not the kind of society I would like to live in. Down here, when the govt pisses us off, we vote them out..

 

[Bern80]

I want a nuke then. And I'm not shifting the argument, rather than explain to you why you are wrong (which you prolly won't understand), I am giving you an analogy.

That doesn't explain why I'm wrong. You're argument was the purpose of gun is to kill. It most clearly isn't, yet you say I'm wrong. Another of my general philosphies is that I don't see the point in restricting a person from doing something that doesn't effect anyone else. It gets back to my point that it makes far more sense to apply laws to people rather than things. You simply owning a nuke in of itself doesn't effect anyone. What YOU (you being person, not an inanimate object) choose to do with it could very well have adverse effect on people. But you of course would have to blame the nuke, not your decision on how to use it.

 

[Diuretic]

My question I guess, is why do you trust them with a say a rifle and not an automatic rifle?

An automatic weapon obviously can do more damage in a shorter period of time than a rifle that needs a bolt action to be worked. If my neighbour went postal then I would have a better chance of survival if he didn't have an automatic weapon.

Note - I can see there have been a number of posts on this and this one is going to look out of the stream of discussion, sorry about that, time zones, I'm working my way through.

 

[Bern80]

Yes, I have spent some time in the US - California and Nevada. But that doesn't where I get my perspective from. I get it from messageboards like this, govt stats, and the number of mass shootings you have over there. There also seems to be a certain section of your society that believes the govt cannot be trusted and therefore the populance has to be armed. Not the kind of society I would like to live in. Down here, when the govt pisses us off, we vote them out..

And again what you have to ask is, can what you have been exposed to be considered representative of our society as whole? Probably not.