Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

Does a word have the strength to pull the trigger?

No but a word spoken has the power to cause a whole country to go to war and many many deaths insue. Guns cannot do anything, nor can they encourage anyone to do anything. Words are infinatley more dangerous than guns or any other inanimate object.

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

Does a word have the strength to pull the trigger?

Words can incite that action. The gun cannot incite that action. Someone must choose to act with a firearm.

The gun isn't the true issue here.

Originally Posted by nick_75au

A gun is designed for killing, regardless of the motive of the person behind it. So I disagree with your statement

Nick

This gun was *NOT* designed for killing. Unless you are a paper target.

Next fallacy?

Originally Posted by wrightme

Words can incite that action. The gun cannot incite that action. Someone must choose to act with a firearm.
....

That's what I said.

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

That's what I said.

So, then you do understand that words have more power than the firearm does.

Originally Posted by wrightme

So, then you do understand that words have more power than the firearm does.

I said that words don't kill.

This is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp

The difference between free speech and gun ownership, is that free speech doesn't kill... Guns kill.

Yes.

There used to be a webcam setup by some guy, pointed at his loaded handgun. I can't find it anymore. Anyway, this guy set up a site and asked people to watch his loaded gun when he wasn't home, and send him an email if it ever went off on its own.

Originally Posted by Windrider53

This gun was *NOT* designed for killing. Unless you are a paper target.

Next fallacy?

Yes, your right, that is not designed for killing, I could find many examples of things designed for one thing that have been re-purposed, Example a car, that is designed for transportation on a road re-purposed to a dedicated rock crawling machine, Its completely useless for the original purpose of road transport

But that's not really the point is it, you would not keep one of those as your rights under the Second Amendment allow, be kinda pointless woudn't it

Nick

Originally Posted by nick_75au

But that's not really the point is it, you would not keep one of those as your rights under the Second Amendment allow, be kinda pointless woudn't it

Nick

Umm, no it wouldn't be. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, it says nothing about what kind of arms.

And even thought that particuler gun was not designed for killing it would still be better than nothing.

Plus the main point is that you stated

A gun is designed for killing

and as I have pointed out, not all are.

I can see this going around in circles Like I said not all cars are designed for transportation on the road, even though cars are designed for transportation.

IMO your arguing semantics

Nick

In another thread I pointed out the fallacy of the 2nd Amendment to not allowing weapons as capable as military weapons in civilian hands. There was a rifle that helped tip the balance in our favor in the Revolutionary War. It had three times the range of any rifle in use by any army at that time, and it had much greater accuracy. The Kentucky Longrifle was civilian designed, civilian made, and civilian owned. The Continental Army called people to come with these weapons and help in the fight for independence. When the 2nd Amendment was written the capabilities of these weapons and their superiority to the standard issue military weapons was still fresh in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. IF there was intended to be a limitation on civilian weapons ownership it would have been spelled out. It was not spelled out, instead it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Originally Posted by nick_75au

I can see this going around in circles Like I said not all cars are designed for transportation on the road, even though cars are designed for transportation.

IMO your arguing semantics

Nick

Arguing that guns are designed for killing is semantics. It has no bearing on the second amendment.