HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 01, 2013, 10:45 AM
Borders, language & culture
AintQytRite's Avatar
United States, TN, Maryville
Joined Jun 2001
213 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp View Post
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.
AintQytRite is offline Find More Posts by AintQytRite
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 11:44 AM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,033 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp View Post
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.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 01:56 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Sacramento
Joined Mar 2006
177 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_75au View Post
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?
Windrider53 is offline Find More Posts by Windrider53
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 03:21 PM
turn, turn, turn.
Athol, Massachusetts
Joined Oct 2005
10,235 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
Words can incite that action. The gun cannot incite that action. Someone must choose to act with a firearm.
....
That's what I said.
Kenny Sharp is offline Find More Posts by Kenny Sharp
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 04:27 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,033 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp View Post
That's what I said.
So, then you do understand that words have more power than the firearm does.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 04:40 PM
turn, turn, turn.
Athol, Massachusetts
Joined Oct 2005
10,235 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
So, then you do understand that words have more power than the firearm does.
I said that words don't kill.
Kenny Sharp is offline Find More Posts by Kenny Sharp
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 04:49 PM
Wherever you go there you are
7oneWo1f's Avatar
United States, MN, Minneapolis
Joined Nov 2011
8,352 Posts
This is what you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp View Post
The difference between free speech and gun ownership, is that free speech doesn't kill... Guns kill.
7oneWo1f is online now Find More Posts by 7oneWo1f
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 04:59 PM
turn, turn, turn.
Athol, Massachusetts
Joined Oct 2005
10,235 Posts
Yes.
Kenny Sharp is offline Find More Posts by Kenny Sharp
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 05:01 PM
Wherever you go there you are
7oneWo1f's Avatar
United States, MN, Minneapolis
Joined Nov 2011
8,352 Posts
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.
7oneWo1f is online now Find More Posts by 7oneWo1f
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 05:50 PM
NeverAgainVolunteerYourse lf
nick_75au's Avatar
Australia, QLD, Regents Park
Joined Mar 2007
3,607 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windrider53 View Post
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
nick_75au is online now Find More Posts by nick_75au
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 05:57 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Sacramento
Joined Mar 2006
177 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_75au View Post
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
Quote:
A gun is designed for killing
and as I have pointed out, not all are.
Windrider53 is offline Find More Posts by Windrider53
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 07:16 PM
NeverAgainVolunteerYourse lf
nick_75au's Avatar
Australia, QLD, Regents Park
Joined Mar 2007
3,607 Posts
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
nick_75au is online now Find More Posts by nick_75au
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 08:36 PM
FrankC
Ocala, Florida
Joined Jun 2007
499 Posts
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.
FrankC is offline Find More Posts by FrankC
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 08:41 PM
Registered User
saltyzoo's Avatar
United States, FL, Tampa
Joined May 2008
140 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_75au View Post
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.
saltyzoo is online now Find More Posts by saltyzoo
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll Should ALL firearms sales in the US require a background check? Park_Flyer Life, The Universe, and Politics 80 Dec 26, 2012 09:45 PM
Discussion Background checks for baseball bats? P-51C Life, The Universe, and Politics 29 Jul 22, 2011 09:39 PM
Discussion Hammer owners should be background checked... P-51C Life, The Universe, and Politics 29 Jul 18, 2011 05:14 PM
Discussion Bill Seeks to Make Permits and Background Checks Optional Gman2 Life, The Universe, and Politics 56 Feb 03, 2010 08:38 AM