One always has to ruin it for others

[Jughead]

However, if I go out of the house without a gun

Without a gun? Have you ever been to Detroit?

Just idle curiosity....

If one were not in Detroit why might one, ANYone, want to go to Detroit?

No fair counting masochism as a reason!

I've never been to Ford Field to watch the Lions play. I'd consider going if I had tickets, and some time off.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah idiot, that's what guns are for, killing things. They aren't toys just because you treat them as such.

Repeating ignorance does not make it true. Firearms only have one purpose and that's to send a projectile downrange. Same as a bow is designed only to send an arrow (projectile) downrange. Though you ignore this, it doesn't make it less true.

A stapler's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. A baseball pitching machine's pupose is to send a projectile downrange. A fireworks propellant's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. None of them are designed to kill or injure anybody.

And again as noted elsewhere --- you can't sit here and claim firearms are for "self-protection", and then in the same breath deny they even have that capability.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Stand in front of a baseball pitching machine cranked to 98 MPH and see how good that goes even if it isn't designed to kill someone.

The gun's only design function is to send a projectile down its barrel using explosive combustion, or a detonation. When gun grabbers start claiming "guns are for killing people" they are once again going for base emotional argument. If a gun was designed only for killing people, they do a piss poor job of it, considering how many rounds are fired every day, and how many deaths occur. They have like a 0.00000001% success rate if killing is their only function.

 

[martybegan]

Everyone likes gun control, for someone else. I like it for all people.

Its the JoeBlow sock, spouting the same bullshit.

that's an ID for the guy behind JoeB? Explains a lot and puts him on the ignore list.

That's my hunch, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Pogo]

However, if I go out of the house without a gun

Without a gun? Have you ever been to Detroit?

Just idle curiosity....

If one were not in Detroit why might one, ANYone, want to go to Detroit?

No fair counting masochism as a reason!

I can highly recommend the Motown Museum. Highly.

And no, having a firearm never occurred to me there, even when I put the wrong address into the GPS and went to a whole different neighborhood. But then I had the disadvantage of being there in the real world rather than the wispy kneejerk fantasy of Internetistan.

 

[Spoonman]

Yeah idiot, that's what guns are for, killing things. They aren't toys just because you treat them as such.

Repeating ignorance does not make it true. Firearms only have one purpose and that's to send a projectile downrange. Same as a bow is designed only to send an arrow (projectile) downrange. Though you ignore this, it doesn't make it less true.

A stapler's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. A baseball pitching machine's pupose is to send a projectile downrange. A fireworks propellant's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. None of them are designed to kill or injure anybody.

And again as noted elsewhere --- you can't sit here and claim firearms are for "self-protection", and then in the same breath deny they even have that capability.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

a gun can kill. if that is the intent someone choses to use it for. thats why there are laws regulating how a legal gun can be used. kill someone with it, you pay a penalty. making a gun illegal, besides violating an individuals constitutional rights, does not prevent someone from killing.

 

[Pogo]

Repeating ignorance does not make it true. Firearms only have one purpose and that's to send a projectile downrange. Same as a bow is designed only to send an arrow (projectile) downrange. Though you ignore this, it doesn't make it less true.

A stapler's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. A baseball pitching machine's pupose is to send a projectile downrange. A fireworks propellant's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. None of them are designed to kill or injure anybody.

And again as noted elsewhere --- you can't sit here and claim firearms are for "self-protection", and then in the same breath deny they even have that capability.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Stand in front of a baseball pitching machine cranked to 98 MPH and see how good that goes even if it isn't designed to kill someone.

Now you're back into the realm of accidents, which is as bullshittery as the car analogy.

You can be hit by a meteor and die. That doesn't mean the meteor was created by Lex Luthor for the purpose of killing you.

The gun's only design function is to send a projectile down its barrel using explosive combustion, or a detonation. When gun grabbers start claiming "guns are for killing people" they are once again going for base emotional argument.

Attaching emotion to it is on you; when you're trained for military or police work, they'll do what they can to remove that factor, but you plugged that element in here yourself. I'm simply clarifying a definition. Definition doesn't require a value judgment.

Bottom line remains, sitting on the internet trying to claim guns are for "sending projectiles" and not for killing is dishonest bullshit. Firearms were invented for hunting and for war, both of which mean killing, which is the firearm's exact purpose. If it didn't do that -- then there would be no point in taking it to the hunt or the war. Not ******* rocket surgery. Let's cut the bullshit pretense.

If a gun was designed only for killing people, they do a piss poor job of it, considering how many rounds are fired every day, and how many deaths occur. They have like a 0.00000001% success rate if killing is their only function.

Nor did I say a gun is designed "only for killing people". Obviously some are desiged for killing animals. Some are designed for killing planes in the sky. Broadly speaking (torpedoes), some are designed to blow up ships. All of them are designed for some kind of destruction.

If they do a "piss poor job", then it's curious that it's the overwhelmingly dominant choice for the mass murder epidemics we see.

And maybe that's the answer after all -- let's see if we can convince the Harrises/Klebolds and the Holmses and the Lanzas and the Loughners and the Pages that "don't bother, you'll do a piss poor job". Rotsa ruck with that.

 

[martybegan]

A stapler's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. A baseball pitching machine's pupose is to send a projectile downrange. A fireworks propellant's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. None of them are designed to kill or injure anybody.

And again as noted elsewhere --- you can't sit here and claim firearms are for "self-protection", and then in the same breath deny they even have that capability.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Stand in front of a baseball pitching machine cranked to 98 MPH and see how good that goes even if it isn't designed to kill someone.

Now you're back into the realm of accidents, which is as bullshittery as the car analogy.

You can be hit by a meteor and die. That doesn't mean the meteor was created by Lex Luthor for the purpose of killing you.

The gun's only design function is to send a projectile down its barrel using explosive combustion, or a detonation. When gun grabbers start claiming "guns are for killing people" they are once again going for base emotional argument.

Attaching emotion to it is on you; when you're trained for military or police work, they'll do what they can to remove that factor, but you plugged that element in here yourself. I'm simply clarifying a definition. Definition doesn't require a value judgment.

Bottom line remains, sitting on the internet trying to claim guns are for "sending projectiles" and not for killing is dishonest bullshit. Firearms were invented for hunting and for war, both of which mean killing, which is the firearm's exact purpose. If it didn't do that -- then there would be no point in taking it to the hunt or the war. Not ******* rocket surgery. Let's cut the bullshit pretense.

If a gun was designed only for killing people, they do a piss poor job of it, considering how many rounds are fired every day, and how many deaths occur. They have like a 0.00000001% success rate if killing is their only function.

Nor did I say a gun is designed "only for killing people". Obviously some are desiged for killing animals. Some are designed for killing planes in the sky. Broadly speaking (torpedoes), some are designed to blow up ships. All of them are designed for some kind of destruction.

If they do a "piss poor job", then it's curious that it's the overwhelmingly dominant choice for the mass murder epidemics we see.

And maybe that's the answer after all -- let's see if we can convince the Harrises/Klebolds and the Holmses and the Lanzas and the Loughners and the Pages that "don't bother, you'll do a piss poor job". Rotsa ruck with that.

The fact you are comparing a torpedo and a gun makes you look like a complete dolt. One of the arguments RKBA advocates have is that gun control freaks don't understand the technical aspect of what they seek to ban. you are a perfect example of this.

And your final paragraph is the ultimate appeal to emotion, again the only argument you have.

let me try to spell this out in simple terms. In a given day how many bullets are fired in the US, and in a given day how many bullets actually kill someone?

 

[Pogo]

Stand in front of a baseball pitching machine cranked to 98 MPH and see how good that goes even if it isn't designed to kill someone.

Now you're back into the realm of accidents, which is as bullshittery as the car analogy.

You can be hit by a meteor and die. That doesn't mean the meteor was created by Lex Luthor for the purpose of killing you.



Attaching emotion to it is on you; when you're trained for military or police work, they'll do what they can to remove that factor, but you plugged that element in here yourself. I'm simply clarifying a definition. Definition doesn't require a value judgment.

Bottom line remains, sitting on the internet trying to claim guns are for "sending projectiles" and not for killing is dishonest bullshit. Firearms were invented for hunting and for war, both of which mean killing, which is the firearm's exact purpose. If it didn't do that -- then there would be no point in taking it to the hunt or the war. Not ******* rocket surgery. Let's cut the bullshit pretense.

If a gun was designed only for killing people, they do a piss poor job of it, considering how many rounds are fired every day, and how many deaths occur. They have like a 0.00000001% success rate if killing is their only function.

Nor did I say a gun is designed "only for killing people". Obviously some are desiged for killing animals. Some are designed for killing planes in the sky. Broadly speaking (torpedoes), some are designed to blow up ships. All of them are designed for some kind of destruction.

If they do a "piss poor job", then it's curious that it's the overwhelmingly dominant choice for the mass murder epidemics we see.

And maybe that's the answer after all -- let's see if we can convince the Harrises/Klebolds and the Holmses and the Lanzas and the Loughners and the Pages that "don't bother, you'll do a piss poor job". Rotsa ruck with that.

The fact you are comparing a torpedo and a gun makes you look like a complete dolt.

Does it now.

What do you think the torpedo design was based on? The bow and arrow?

One of the arguments RKBA advocates have is that gun control freaks don't understand the technical aspect of what they seek to ban. you are a perfect example of this.

What does "gun control freaks" have to do with me?

And your final paragraph is the ultimate appeal to emotion, again the only argument you have.

Actually it's called satire. It's a way of ridiculing dishonest crap. That you take an emotional reaction to it is your problem; the point is made.

let me try to spell this out in simple terms. In a given day how many bullets are fired in the US, and in a given day how many bullets actually kill someone?

How the **** would I know? Why would I care? It's got nothing to do with this subtopic. The definition and correction thereto was what they're for -- not how often they work.

 

[martybegan]

Now you're back into the realm of accidents, which is as bullshittery as the car analogy.

You can be hit by a meteor and die. That doesn't mean the meteor was created by Lex Luthor for the purpose of killing you.



Attaching emotion to it is on you; when you're trained for military or police work, they'll do what they can to remove that factor, but you plugged that element in here yourself. I'm simply clarifying a definition. Definition doesn't require a value judgment.

Bottom line remains, sitting on the internet trying to claim guns are for "sending projectiles" and not for killing is dishonest bullshit. Firearms were invented for hunting and for war, both of which mean killing, which is the firearm's exact purpose. If it didn't do that -- then there would be no point in taking it to the hunt or the war. Not ******* rocket surgery. Let's cut the bullshit pretense.



Nor did I say a gun is designed "only for killing people". Obviously some are desiged for killing animals. Some are designed for killing planes in the sky. Broadly speaking (torpedoes), some are designed to blow up ships. All of them are designed for some kind of destruction.

If they do a "piss poor job", then it's curious that it's the overwhelmingly dominant choice for the mass murder epidemics we see.

And maybe that's the answer after all -- let's see if we can convince the Harrises/Klebolds and the Holmses and the Lanzas and the Loughners and the Pages that "don't bother, you'll do a piss poor job". Rotsa ruck with that.

The fact you are comparing a torpedo and a gun makes you look like a complete dolt.

Does it now.

What do you think the torpedo design was based on? The bow and arrow?



What does "gun control freaks" have to do with me?

And your final paragraph is the ultimate appeal to emotion, again the only argument you have.

Actually it's called satire. It's a way of ridiculing dishonest crap. That you take an emotional reaction to it is your problem; the point is made.

let me try to spell this out in simple terms. In a given day how many bullets are fired in the US, and in a given day how many bullets actually kill someone?

How the **** would I know? Why would I care? It's got nothing to do with this subtopic. The definition and correction thereto was what they're for -- not how often they work.

because if a gun is designed for the express purpose of killing something, it obviously isn't performing as designed for the majority of uses.

And as for the torpedo being a descendant of a gun, lol. Its actually a descendant of a mine. Again, your lake of technical knowledge makes you look ignorant.

 

[hunarcy]

Repeating ignorance does not make it true. Firearms only have one purpose and that's to send a projectile downrange. Same as a bow is designed only to send an arrow (projectile) downrange. Though you ignore this, it doesn't make it less true.

A stapler's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. A baseball pitching machine's pupose is to send a projectile downrange. A fireworks propellant's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. None of them are designed to kill or injure anybody.

And again as noted elsewhere --- you can't sit here and claim firearms are for "self-protection", and then in the same breath deny they even have that capability.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Stand in front of a baseball pitching machine cranked to 98 MPH and see how good that goes even if it isn't designed to kill someone.

The gun's only design function is to send a projectile down its barrel using explosive combustion, or a detonation. When gun grabbers start claiming "guns are for killing people" they are once again going for base emotional argument. If a gun was designed only for killing people, they do a piss poor job of it, considering how many rounds are fired every day, and how many deaths occur. They have like a 0.00000001% success rate if killing is their only function.

You can't expect Pogo to make sense because he is angry. I found his missives to be inadequate and negged him while putting him on ignore. He's obsessed with me now and constantly posts to me though he knows I don't read him. I'd intended to only put him on ignore a short time, but when I took him off, I saw that he posted again and again to abuse me and didn't address the topic. So, rightly, I negged him again and put him back on ignore. He can't seem to stand the fact that I find him irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

The fact you are comparing a torpedo and a gun makes you look like a complete dolt.

Does it now.

What do you think the torpedo design was based on? The bow and arrow?



What does "gun control freaks" have to do with me?



Actually it's called satire. It's a way of ridiculing dishonest crap. That you take an emotional reaction to it is your problem; the point is made.

let me try to spell this out in simple terms. In a given day how many bullets are fired in the US, and in a given day how many bullets actually kill someone?

How the **** would I know? Why would I care? It's got nothing to do with this subtopic. The definition and correction thereto was what they're for -- not how often they work.

because if a gun is designed for the express purpose of killing something, it obviously isn't performing as designed for the majority of uses.

And as for the torpedo being a descendant of a gun, lol. Its actually a descendant of a mine. Again, your lake of technical knowledge makes you look ignorant.

Riiiiiiiiight. From the days when mines were shot at people from a distance.

That's actually what we call a "gun". Duh.

 

[Pogo]

A stapler's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. A baseball pitching machine's pupose is to send a projectile downrange. A fireworks propellant's purpose is to send a projectile downrange. None of them are designed to kill or injure anybody.

And again as noted elsewhere --- you can't sit here and claim firearms are for "self-protection", and then in the same breath deny they even have that capability.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Stand in front of a baseball pitching machine cranked to 98 MPH and see how good that goes even if it isn't designed to kill someone.

The gun's only design function is to send a projectile down its barrel using explosive combustion, or a detonation. When gun grabbers start claiming "guns are for killing people" they are once again going for base emotional argument. If a gun was designed only for killing people, they do a piss poor job of it, considering how many rounds are fired every day, and how many deaths occur. They have like a 0.00000001% success rate if killing is their only function.

You can't expect Pogo to make sense because he is angry. I found his missives to be inadequate and negged him while putting him on ignore. He's obsessed with me now and constantly posts to me though he knows I don't read him. I'd intended to only put him on ignore a short time, but when I took him off, I saw that he posted again and again to abuse me and didn't address the topic. So, rightly, I negged him again and put him back on ignore. He can't seem to stand the fact that I find him irrelevant.

Translation: "I can't counter his deconstruction of my bullshit, so I'm gonna whine and neg and hold my breath 'til I turn blue -- and oh yeah turn my PMs off so nobody can talk to me".

Maybe instead of turning off PMs you should turn off PMS, whiny *****.

 

[martybegan]

Does it now.

What do you think the torpedo design was based on? The bow and arrow?



What does "gun control freaks" have to do with me?



Actually it's called satire. It's a way of ridiculing dishonest crap. That you take an emotional reaction to it is your problem; the point is made.



How the **** would I know? Why would I care? It's got nothing to do with this subtopic. The definition and correction thereto was what they're for -- not how often they work.

because if a gun is designed for the express purpose of killing something, it obviously isn't performing as designed for the majority of uses.

And as for the torpedo being a descendant of a gun, lol. Its actually a descendant of a mine. Again, your lake of technical knowledge makes you look ignorant.

Riiiiiiiiight. From the days when mines were shot at people from a distance.

That's actually what we call a "gun". Duh.

Ever hear of "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead"? Farragut was talking about mines, which were called torpedoes back in the day.

a torpedo is nothing more than a mine that is guided towards the target vessel. The object is to damage the hull of the vessel via explosive contact or close contact. Guns fire non-explosive bullets that rely on kinetic energy to penetrate the target, and chemical energy to be propelled.

A gun/bullet combination and a torpedo are nothing alike, from purpose, design, or inspiration.

 

[Pogo]

because if a gun is designed for the express purpose of killing something, it obviously isn't performing as designed for the majority of uses.

And as for the torpedo being a descendant of a gun, lol. Its actually a descendant of a mine. Again, your lake of technical knowledge makes you look ignorant.

Riiiiiiiiight. From the days when mines were shot at people from a distance.

That's actually what we call a "gun". Duh.

Ever hear of "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead"? Farragut was talking about mines, which were called torpedoes back in the day.

a torpedo is nothing more than a mine that is guided towards the target vessel. The object is to damage the hull of the vessel via explosive contact or close contact. Guns fire non-explosive bullets that rely on kinetic energy to penetrate the target, and chemical energy to be propelled.

A gun/bullet combination and a torpedo are nothing alike, from purpose, design, or inspiration.

Rrrriiiiiiight. "Guided" is in no way a design to "send a projectile downrange".

 

[martybegan]

Riiiiiiiiight. From the days when mines were shot at people from a distance.

That's actually what we call a "gun". Duh.

Ever hear of "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead"? Farragut was talking about mines, which were called torpedoes back in the day.

a torpedo is nothing more than a mine that is guided towards the target vessel. The object is to damage the hull of the vessel via explosive contact or close contact. Guns fire non-explosive bullets that rely on kinetic energy to penetrate the target, and chemical energy to be propelled.

A gun/bullet combination and a torpedo are nothing alike, from purpose, design, or inspiration.

Rrrriiiiiiight. "Guided" is in no way a design to "send a projectile downrange".

You really are doubling down on the stupid, ain't ya?

I've explained this to you several times, if you are too stupid to get it, its your own fault.

 

[Pogo]

Ever hear of "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead"? Farragut was talking about mines, which were called torpedoes back in the day.

a torpedo is nothing more than a mine that is guided towards the target vessel. The object is to damage the hull of the vessel via explosive contact or close contact. Guns fire non-explosive bullets that rely on kinetic energy to penetrate the target, and chemical energy to be propelled.

A gun/bullet combination and a torpedo are nothing alike, from purpose, design, or inspiration.

Rrrriiiiiiight. "Guided" is in no way a design to "send a projectile downrange".

You really are doubling down on the stupid, ain't ya?

I've explained this to you several times, if you are too stupid to get it, its your own fault.

More proof that Crotchety Old Man can only argue from emotion.

As is this:

Hi, you have received -1968 reputation points from martybegan.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
******* Oxygen Thief.

Regards,
martybegan

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[martybegan]

Rrrriiiiiiight. "Guided" is in no way a design to "send a projectile downrange".

You really are doubling down on the stupid, ain't ya?

I've explained this to you several times, if you are too stupid to get it, its your own fault.

More proof that Crotchety Old Man can only argue from emotion.

As is this:

Hi, you have received -1968 reputation points from martybegan.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
******* Oxygen Thief.

Regards,
martybegan

Note: This is an automated message.

I'm sorry, I'm just allergic to stupid, something you display in mass quantities.

Lets go into detail shall we?

Torpedo: Propulsion: Internal propulsion via motor, engine, compressed air, or slow chemical reaction.

Bullet: Propulsion. External propulsion via detonation.

Torpedo: payload: Explosives designed to damage hull of ships via explosive contact, or concussive force underneath the keel of a ship.

Bullet: Payload: the bullet IS the payload, designed to damage a target via kinetic energy

Torpedo: internals: Warhead, propulsion, guidance,ballast.

Bullet: Internals: Metal


Torpedo: guidance: Internal, either fins for straight path, or a seeker head.

Bullet: Guidance: External: Rifling of the gun tube, and aiming.

Enough for ya, dippy?

 

[Mustang]

I do. But being in someone's house and in a restaurant are two different things.

So, what do I follow, the 2nd Amendment, or a sign?

The Second Amendment applies to the government, not a private entity. You're another "small government" conservative who thinks the Constitution only applies when you agree with it. No different than the so-called liberals.

Excuse me? I am a libertarian. Technically I believe there should be NO government. But hey, think of me what you will. Interesting, as far as I can tell, a concealed carry permit trumps a sign anyway. New York does issue concealed carry permits on a may issue basis, and unless notice is duly posted, I can freely enter and exit the premises with a concealed weapon.

Go to Somalia. You'll get your wish.

Note: Once you find yourself jammed up, get yourself out of the mess since you don't believe in gov't!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I forgot, what was this thread about?