The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy
- Thread starter CabinetMaker
- Start date
Dan Emanuel
Active member
PureX
Well-known member
Exactly! M-16s are made for ripping open your empty beer cans from 20 paces. Everyone knows that!Yeah, that's it. Guns are for shooting "structures".
:chuckle:
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Every dangerous tool can be used against a human body.
I've got a circular saw, a reciprocating saw, an angle grinder, a chain saw, and even a pair of snip's that could dismember 1.
DJ
1.0
PureX
Well-known member
Yep, but guns are DESIGNED for killing large complex life forms, like human beings. They do it very well, and they really aren't much good at anything else, as you were foolishly trying to propose. While all those other tools you mentioned, aren't efficient killing machines.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
They are designed to propel a piece of metal (or piece's of metal) at a very high rate of speed in a straight line. Anything that need's this done to it, is what a firearm is designed for.
DJ
1.1
They're designed to kill. Stop playing stupid and or pedantic.
PureX
Well-known member
No, guns are designed to kill large complex life forms. Nothing else. Nada, zippo, finito. That's it … kill, kill, kill. That's what guns are for. That's all guns are for. They ain't made for nothin' else. They never have been made for nothin' else.
And that's all there is to be said about it.
HisServant
New member
No, guns are designed to kill large complex life forms. Nothing else. Nada, zippo, ansolutcioso. That's it … kill, kill, kill. That's what guns are for. That's all guns are for. They ain't for nothin' else. They never have been made for nothin' else.
And that's all there is to be said about it.
Back in my youth, I probably shot over a several million rounds of ammo and never killed a complex life form.
Target shooting, skeet and trap shooting.
PureX
Well-known member
So you were practicing at shooting real complex life forms instead of actually shooting them. That's fine, but the guns were made for the real thing. The fact that you only practiced at it, but never actually used them for what they were intended for doesn't change the fact that they were intended to be used to kill things.
Yeah, and it says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when it should have said "life, liberty, and property."
The constitution has been wrong in the past on some things, and will continue to be wrong in the future on some things. What is a better question is "what is right?" or "what is true?" regardless what the constitution might say. And since rights are given by God and not the state, we can know when the constitution got something right despite itself. "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" = correct conclusion; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" = incorrect premise. It should have said "Since all men have the right to self defense the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Shoulda woulda coulda. It says what it says, not what you'd prefer it to be.
PureX
Well-known member
That's actually the Declaration of Independence that says that. And it means what it says.
Not all of us pursue our own happiness by owning things. For many of us, pursuing happiness means being able to study certain things, or being able to practice and execute certain skills. What the founders were talking about were fundamental rights that we all have as human beings, because they are required aspects of our being fully human. Without life, our 'humanness' is irrelevant. Without freedom, we are existing, but not really living. And without the ability to pursue that which makes life meaningful to us, we cannot become fully ourselves. The founders did not see property is the essential factor for individual human expression. They saw the need to pursue our dreams as that essential factor for full human expression. And so that's exactly how they worded it. They did also state that these three were rights "among others". They implied that there are other fundamental unalienable rights, and if you want to label one of those as the right to "own things", I doubt many would disagree with you.
That's not even in the Constitution.
You do realize that, hypothetically speaking, if all bullets were smart bullets that could not hit a person, you are claiming that all guns would stop being made or used. Are you sure about that? Nobody would shoot skeet anymore, or target practice, or olympic shooting? or any other gun use that wasn't shooting a person?
Yes we know. Don't be pedantic.
:rotfl:
Uh, we might know, but seems like you sure didn't. We're not being pedantic. We're pointing out you completely screwed up. There's a difference.:chuckle:
You too.