• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War

CLAX1911 said:
No fire arm ever made is designed to kill they are designed to fire a projectile or shot.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
Yeah, just a coincidence if the projectile happens to hit someone in the head and kill them. The gun wasn't designed to hit people with projectiles and thus kill them. Everyone knows guns are for making pictures in the snow. Right.

:lamo




I really don't know why you people go to these extremes. To those who may not be entirely decided regarding whether or what gun control they want, you're just kneecapping your credibility with idiotic hairsplitting like that. Someone looking at a claim that a firearm isn't designed to kill because running someone over with a car doesn't mean the car was designed to kill is not going to listen to anything further. Well, not unless they make popcorn first.

Of course a gun is designed to kill, which it does with the projectile. Why make disputing that the hill to die on?
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
No, typically it's a deliberate act sometimes it's accidental.

It is the person that intends to kill or is carless.

No, they were designed to fire a projectile. If you point it to hit someone, you are using it to do so.

It's called personal accountability.

It is an extreme to say a gun is designed to fire a projectile? So is the fact that they do just an accident?
Well, I have a sporting clay gun am I using it wrong by not murdering people with it?

Then they aren't rational. The point is you can use a gun every day without killing anything.

If it was designed to kill how would that be possible?
Why do you think somebody making a point which you haven't argued is dying on a hill?

All you've done is insist they are designed to kill. You haven't explained why. I have you an example of a gun designed for sporting clays. You insist I'm using that gun incorrectly by not killing things with it.

Why is this the hill you wish to die on?
Click to expand...

Ah, very good strategy. Chop it up into tiny bits so it's annoying as **** to respond to. Number your arguments if you need that much hair-splitting.

Guns are designed to kill via projectile. That you CAN draw pictures in the snow with them doesn't mean they were designed to draw pictures in the snow, just like the fact that a car CAN be used to kill doesn't mean it's designed to kill, whether animal or person.

Your argument is fundamentally dishonest. You are taking an item designed to kill and claiming it isn't designed to kill because other things can be used to kill. When challenged on that, you turn around and then try to use the fact that the item designed to kill can be used for other purposes to say it isn't designed for its main purpose. It's transparently dishonest. You're just moving goalposts. You might as well argue that thermonuclear weapons weren't designed to kill because you could use them to blow up part of a mountain. Or that a car is merely designed to burn refined fossil fuels. Or a computer is merely designed to send electricity through circuits. It's stupid. Juvenile. The intent is obvious.

Why did militaries originally use these things? Because gunpowder could move projectiles of a type fast enough that they punctured armor that arrows couldn't puncture. Why do that? To kill. No doubt you'll chop this up and respond to each word with irrelevancies about how Chinese fireworks supposedly prove that European militaries using gunpowder to build guns weren't building them to kill where arrows couldn't.


It is an idiotic hill to die on. If you are were arguing honestly, you wouldn't be arguing for why various classes of weapons should be allowed to kill
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Ah, very good strategy. Chop it up into tiny bits so it's annoying as **** to respond to.
Click to expand...
Waa waa waa.
Guns are designed to kill via projectile. That you CAN draw pictures in the snow with them doesn't mean they were designed to draw pictures in the snow, just like the fact that a car CAN be used to kill doesn't mean it's designed to kill, whether animal or person.
Click to expand...
Why because you insist?

Support your claim.
Your argument is fundamentally dishonest. You are taking an item designed to kill and claiming it isn't designed to kill because other things can be used to kill. When challenged, you turn around and then try to use the fact that the item designed to kill can be used for other purposes to say it isn't designed for its main purpose. It's transparently dishonest. You're just moving goalposts.
Click to expand...
You are laboring under the assumption that you are correct. I don't share that assumption.
Why did militaries originally use these things? Because gunpowder could move projectiles of a type fast enough that they punctured armor that arrows couldn't puncture. Why do that? To kill.
Click to expand...
Never said you couldn't kill with it. So that really isn't an argument.

No doubt you'll chop this up and respond to each word with irrelevancies about Chinese fireworks.
Click to expand...
No doubt you'll continue to cry about it.

If you don't like the way I post responses don't talk to me.
 
Mr Person said:
Ah, very good strategy. Chop it up into tiny bits so it's annoying as **** to respond to. Number your arguments if you need that much hair-splitting.

Guns are designed to kill via projectile. That you CAN draw pictures in the snow with them doesn't mean they were designed to draw pictures in the snow, just like the fact that a car CAN be used to kill doesn't mean it's designed to kill, whether animal or person.

Your argument is fundamentally dishonest. You are taking an item designed to kill and claiming it isn't designed to kill because other things can be used to kill. When challenged on that, you turn around and then try to use the fact that the item designed to kill can be used for other purposes to say it isn't designed for its main purpose. It's transparently dishonest. You're just moving goalposts. You might as well argue that thermonuclear weapons weren't designed to kill because you could use them to blow up part of a mountain. Or that a car is merely designed to burn refined fossil fuels. Or a computer is merely designed to send electricity through circuits. It's stupid. Juvenile. The intent is obvious.

Why did militaries originally use these things? Because gunpowder could move projectiles of a type fast enough that they punctured armor that arrows couldn't puncture. Why do that? To kill. No doubt you'll chop this up and respond to each word with irrelevancies about how Chinese fireworks supposedly prove that European militaries using gunpowder to build guns weren't building them to kill where arrows couldn't.


It is an idiotic hill to die on. If you are were arguing honestly, you wouldn't be arguing for why various classes of weapons should be allowed to kill
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
Waa waa waa. Why because you insist? Support your claim. You are laboring under the assumption that you are correct. I don't share that assumption. Never said you couldn't kill with it. So that really isn't an argument. No doubt you'll continue to cry about it. If you don't like the way I post responses don't talk to me.
Click to expand...

I don't see any substantive response to the arguments. If your intent is not what I think it is, feel free to actually make an argument.
 
Casper said:
Psst, a whole lot of those guys like them are now the guys like us, meaning those that support the right to bear arms, and those guys come from both the right and left leaning side.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that helps the debate but OK.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War

Assault weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. They are for war; they are not for sport.

defense-large.jpg




You've got it right Sir. This is absolute madness.
Click to expand...
How about stopping the slaughter of our children, period.
 
Mr Person said:
I don't see any substantive response to the arguments.
Click to expand...
What arguments?

If your intent is not what I think it is, feel free to actually make an argument.
Click to expand...
Against what? All you have done was insist on something. I simply disagree with you.
 
CLAX1911 said:
What arguments?
Click to expand...

These?



Ah, very good strategy. Chop it up into tiny bits so it's annoying as **** to respond to. Number your arguments if you need that much hair-splitting.

Guns are designed to kill via projectile. That you CAN draw pictures in the snow with them doesn't mean they were designed to draw pictures in the snow, just like the fact that a car CAN be used to kill doesn't mean it's designed to kill, whether animal or person.

Your argument is fundamentally dishonest. You are taking an item designed to kill and claiming it isn't designed to kill because other things can be used to kill. When challenged on that, you turn around and then try to use the fact that the item designed to kill can be used for other purposes to say it isn't designed for its main purpose. It's transparently dishonest. You're just moving goalposts. You might as well argue that thermonuclear weapons weren't designed to kill because you could use them to blow up part of a mountain. Or that a car is merely designed to burn refined fossil fuels. Or a computer is merely designed to send electricity through circuits. It's stupid. Juvenile. The intent is obvious.

Why did militaries originally use these things? Because gunpowder could move projectiles of a type fast enough that they punctured armor that arrows couldn't puncture. Why do that? To kill. No doubt you'll chop this up and respond to each word with irrelevancies about how Chinese fireworks supposedly prove that European militaries using gunpowder to build guns weren't building them to kill where arrows couldn't.


It is an idiotic hill to die on. If you are were arguing honestly, you wouldn't be arguing for why various classes of weapons should be allowed to kill



:shrug:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
He got it wrong and is fully aware that an AR-15 is not "just like" an M-4 or M-16 (which are assault rifles).

Click to expand...


Agreed. It's just anti-Constitutional, pro-Authoritarian people seeking to strip honest people of their rights rather than actually fix social problems; specifically mental health care and supporting legislation.

Also note more kids die every year in either cars or swimming pools than by "weapons of war".

FWIW, the Mosin-Nagant pictured below is a real "weapon of war". No doubt the gun banners will be coming to confiscate that too if they could.

Mosin-Nagant-Archangel.jpg
 
Rich2018 said:
John Paul Stevens, Retired Supreme Court Justice, Calls For 2nd Amendment Repeal : NPR


A couple of years ago I'd have said repealing the 2nd was impossible, now I just think it's unlikely.

Posters like TurtleDude seem to think it's at least a possibility as the cite the mandatory gun registration is a first step to confiscation, with their objections to it.
Click to expand...
Confiscation...abusing red flag laws...is a real threat to the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Anti-gun leftist twat politicians are constantly looking for new and creative ways to infringe on the rights of citizens. It is the responsibility of citizens to stand against those corrupt worthless ****s.
 
Mr Person said:
These?
Click to expand...
This was the only one there.


Guns are designed to kill via projectile.
Click to expand...
You wasted all that time typing out all that worthless crap.

It doesn't argue the point I made that guns are designed to fire a projectile.

Assigning intent to the engineers when you aren't aware of it is a mistake on your part.
 
CLAX1911 said:
What arguments?
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
These?



Ah, very good strategy. Chop it up into tiny bits so it's annoying as **** to respond to. Number your arguments if you need that much hair-splitting.

Guns are designed to kill via projectile. That you CAN draw pictures in the snow with them doesn't mean they were designed to draw pictures in the snow, just like the fact that a car CAN be used to kill doesn't mean it's designed to kill, whether animal or person.

Your argument is fundamentally dishonest. You are taking an item designed to kill and claiming it isn't designed to kill because other things can be used to kill. When challenged on that, you turn around and then try to use the fact that the item designed to kill can be used for other purposes to say it isn't designed for its main purpose. It's transparently dishonest. You're just moving goalposts. You might as well argue that thermonuclear weapons weren't designed to kill because you could use them to blow up part of a mountain. Or that a car is merely designed to burn refined fossil fuels. Or a computer is merely designed to send electricity through circuits. It's stupid. Juvenile. The intent is obvious.

Why did militaries originally use these things? Because gunpowder could move projectiles of a type fast enough that they punctured armor that arrows couldn't puncture. Why do that? To kill. No doubt you'll chop this up and respond to each word with irrelevancies about how Chinese fireworks supposedly prove that European militaries using gunpowder to build guns weren't building them to kill where arrows couldn't.


It is an idiotic hill to die on. If you are were arguing honestly, you wouldn't be arguing for why various classes of weapons should be allowed to kill



:shrug:
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
This was the only one there. You wasted all that time typing out all that worthless crap. It doesn't argue the point I made that guns are designed to fire a projectile. Assigning intent to the engineers when you aren't aware of it is a mistake on your part.
Click to expand...


What?

Who do you think still cares but cares so little they will be duped when they click the ">>" button and see your dishonest evasions?
 
Mr Person said:
What?
Click to expand...
This was the only one there. You wasted all that time typing out all that worthless crap. It doesn't argue the point I made that guns are designed to fire a projectile. Assigning intent to the engineers when you aren't aware of it is a mistake on your part.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yeah, let's see how much help the 2nd amendment is against guys like them.
Click to expand...

Actually it makes all the difference in the world. I was in the military and a whole lot of guys that had been shooting and hunting before they were even in their teens were the best shooters and soldiers we had. If you think you can create a great soldier is six weeks of training your are wrong. I probably shot over 100 thousand rounds before I went into the military. It takes years to master all the skills necessary to be a good soldier. A lot of those skills are the same as the skills used in civilian life.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
Fire at a Target. If that Target is a rabbit, a mugger, or a kindergarten, the gun nor the designer are implicated.
Click to expand...

lol what an idiotic argument. Of course guns were first designed with the intent to be used as a weapon... to be used to kill people... or at the very least to kill prey. To kill animals for hunting. Any other way to look at that only makes the poster look like a complete idiot.
 
Bodhisattva said:
lol what an idiotic argument. Of course guns were first designed with the intent to be used as a weapon... to be used to kill people... or at the very least to kill prey.
Click to expand...
They are designed to fire a projectile.
To kill animals for hunting. Any other way to look at that only makes the poster look like a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

In order for me to look like an idiot you must show that the gun isn't designed to fire a projectile.
 
VanceMack said:
Confiscation...abusing red flag laws...is a real threat to the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Anti-gun leftist twat politicians are constantly looking for new and creative ways to infringe on the rights of citizens. It is the responsibility of citizens to stand against those corrupt worthless ****s.
Click to expand...

Are you unable to follow a debate.

No (comprehensive) ban or confiscation is possible without a repeal of the 2nd amendment and the subsequent amendment repealing it banning guns.

So no, it would NOT be a threat to the Constitution.

It would be mandated by the same Constitution.


To which you'll probably say that won't happen.
If so, just relax while gun control reformers try to make it happen.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Actually it makes all the difference in the world. I was in the military and a whole lot of guys that had been shooting and hunting before they were even in their teens were the best shooters and soldiers we had. If you think you can create a great soldier is six weeks of training you are wrong. I probably shot over 100 thousand rounds before I went into the military. It takes years to master all the skills necessary to be a good soldier. A lot of those skills are the same as the skills used in civilian life.
Click to expand...

I was in the army too tough probably a different army and yes, it does take a long time to be an expert in fieldcraft.

You can learn how to shoot accurately up to 300 meters fairly quickly though.


All the same, I stand by the adage that it is better to have a good soldier with a poor weapon than a poor soldier with a good weapon.
 
Rich2018 said:
Are you unable to follow a debate.

No (comprehensive) ban or confiscation is possible without a repeal of the 2nd amendment and the subsequent amendment repealing it banning guns.

So no, it would NOT be a threat to the Constitution.

It would be mandated by the same Constitution.


To which you'll probably say that won't happen.
If so, just relax while gun control reformers try to make it happen.
Click to expand...
Its funny. You responded to my comment...I didnt seek you out. My comment said the exact same thing you just said...that the only shot you have of a ban is to amend the Constitution. Then you want to make your snotty "unable to follow a debate" comment after you clearly demonstrated...you are unable to follow a debate.

Well played.
 
CLAX1911 said:
They are designed to fire a projectile.
Click to expand...

Yes... and a car was designed to roll forwards and backwards... your idiotic attempt to deny what guns are intended for is obvious. Cars were not designed to move people and things about... they were designed to roll with no intention of anything else. :lol:

In order for me to look like an idiot
Click to expand...

No, you are already doing a fine job of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom