invite response« First « Previous Comments 15 - 45 of 45 Search these comments
David Losh
2013 Jan 21, 10:56am
"sporting" uses of firearms were invented after the fact.
Sorry, but blowing stuff up was the original intended purpose of gun powder, and projectiles. The canon was for attacking walls, and ship hulls, it was a tool.
Even early pistols were fitted with a bayonet, as were muskets.
Now where the lethal aspects of guns came in was during the Civil War when wholesale slaughter was commited by weapons, then we had the revolver, and Winchester to wipe out huge swaths of people.
So really guns are the short timers in the art of war, and now they have been religated behind smart bombs, nukes, and even chemicals.
The fire arms today really are more for sport than weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has glamorized guns as a way to settle scores, seek vengence, or for protection. That glamour is really what should be changed.
I personally don't carry a gun, and haven't for years. I pay attention out on the street, and do have a baseball bat for home protection. If any one is really interested in revenge taking away the guns won't change that.
There are a lot of ways to kill that are even less personal than a gun.
Sorry, but blowing stuff up was the original intended purpose of gun powder, and projectiles. The canon was for attacking walls, and ship hulls, it was a tool.
Even early pistols were fitted with a bayonet, as were muskets.
What the hell are you talking about? Those are still uses that squarely qualify as "weapons".
Early firearms had bayonets because they weren't very good at killing people. They were still designed as weapons to hurt.
"ATTACKING" walls and hulls isn't a "tool". It's a WEAPON. The idea that the cannon was invented for anything other than a weapon of warfare is ridiculous.
Gun powder isn't a firearm. Explosives have many practical uses other than killing that are essential to society.
David Losh
2013 Jan 21, 11:51am
Gun powder isn't a firearm.
You really have a blind spot here in terms of war, as both a business, and an industry. All I'm really saying is that guns have been around for a relatively short amount of time in terms of killing. The time for guns has been surpassed by other bombs, that's the warfare you are seeing today.
You're saying guns weren't for sport, but yes they were, and are. It's the new nifty thing.
What I actually mean by your blind spot is that you are glossing over the glamour of guns in our society. The American Revolution, as opposed to the French Revolution, the Civil War, the Wild West, Prohibition, and Viet nam, complete with the radical movement that, yes, included guns, and bombings.
It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?
No, you have to address the root problem rather than the tool.
You really have a blind spot here in terms of war, as both a business, and an industry. All I'm really saying is that guns have been around for a relatively short amount of time in terms of killing. The time for guns has been surpassed by other bombs, that's the warfare you are seeing today.
That doesn't change the fact that guns are weapons. It's why they exist.
It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?
That is exactly what I've been saying for a hundred posts now, actually...
JodyChunder
2013 Jan 21, 4:07pm
A weapon is something that is designed primarily yo injure or kill. A sword or a gun are examples.
Alongside bagpipes and women named Bobbi Jo.
David Losh
2013 Jan 22, 12:37am
That doesn't change the fact that guns are weapons. It's why they exist.
Actually guns are like a hundred other weapons. They start out as something useful, and end up being villians in a long plot to kill people. You're debating against bombs made of fertilizer, or Sarin gas, even airplanes directed at the World Trade Centers.
It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?
That is exactly what I've been saying for a hundred posts now, actually...
What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.
The problem is we have a government heavily invested in manufacturing military weapons. Colt doesn't just come up with an AR 15 because hunters will use it. The AR 15, is a cheaper version of the M 16 which has been replaced with the M 4. So there are thousands of surplus military weapons in the system that we export.
You're not looking at the business of war, or how the United States government itself justifies an armed society.
We could maybe make a discussion about how when our police force changed from revolvers to Glocks they escalated the need for criminals to increase the capacity of the weapons they had.
It's a vicious circle, but if our government really wanted to do something they would address the escalation of violence rather than the weapons.
FortWayne
2013 Jan 22, 12:41am
Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.
FortWayne
2013 Jan 22, 12:51am
They are coming for our guns. Anyone ever shoot down a drone?
You have to remember your history. Our government had no problem when they could to order executions or imprisonments of those who they found very inconvenient.
Guns make that task a lot more inconvenient forcing government to act more cautions and more humane in order not to spark violence.
Actually guns are like a hundred other weapons. They start out as something useful, and end up being villians in a long plot to kill people. You're debating against bombs made of fertilizer, or Sarin gas, even airplanes directed at the World Trade Centers.
What was the non-weapon use for guns that they "started as"?
The primary use for guns is to kill things. Soldiers, hunters, home defenders. Target practice is a secondary use (and its practice for killing things!)
The primary use for fertilizer and airplanes is not to kill things.
Thats a huge difference.
What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.
No, I haven't. Check my post history.
FortWayne
2013 Jan 22, 2:25am
get some education in thinking.
Having gun rights is not up to a debate, it's a right.
And education in thinking, that does sound very soviet communist.
FortWayne
2013 Jan 22, 3:50am
So, whenever you want to quit being an idiot, feel free to actually join the adults
You mean adults like you and the 121212, both of whom like to indulge in personal insults against disagreement to further their points... Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.
An adult, at least socially in our generation, is someone who can handle responsibility, ability you are not demonstrating.
David Losh
2013 Jan 22, 4:30am
What was the non-weapon use for guns that they "started as"?
To blow stuff up, and blow holes in stuff.
You have that blind spot about war.
Nukes started as some do good salvation, now they are a weapon of very mass destruction.
The gun was refined from a cannon.
The projectile isn't relevant.
I'll also say again that the gun, rifle, or cannon have been around a very short time in the big scheme of things, and is very possibly obsolete.
What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.
No, I haven't. Check my post history.
I have read your comments. If there is a point other than guns bad I'm missing it.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 22, 4:31am
Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.
Your such a fucking moron! How do you expect to have a conversation!
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 22, 4:32am
You mean adults like you and the 121212, both of whom like to indulge in personal insults against disagreement to further their points... Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.
An adult, at least socially in our generation, is someone who can handle responsibility, ability you are not demonstrating.
Get off you high horse you suck and so do your anti gay, pro gun opinions.
Another foolish racist bigot.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 22, 4:34am
are you really that clueless? that incapable of debating even say background checks on gun buying, that you have to go this route? if so, you should quit posting for a while, and get some education in thinking.
Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!
Tenpoundbass
2013 Jan 22, 4:42am
Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.
They are the same dim witted son of a bitch. He's very angry at me, because I got him fired twice. When he was paid to come here and attack conservatives. He's an internet political schiel but sucks at it. He can't engage anyone on a level any deeper than a bedpan. Which is where his posts always end up, just a big ole shit slinging angry protest stink.
I would challenge him to post one thought out post that didn't involve him railing against someone. No I'm not talking about coherence here, just anything even if I didn't agree with he has to say.
Pathetic moron, lunatic. The dim fuck every time he posts in my threads I dislike him then delete. His dislikes goes up while his post count goes down. It gives me great pleasure to delete them.
If this is contest about who can waste the most amount of time, I would still win, because AT LEAST I HAVE JOB!.
lostand confused
2013 Jan 22, 4:53am
Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.
That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 22, 5:05am
He can't engage anyone on a level any deeper than a bedpan
Have you looked in the mirror, BIGOT!
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 22, 5:06am
If this is contest about who can waste the most amount of time, I would still win, because AT LEAST I HAVE JOB!.
Delusional, Lunatic, Moron, Racist bigot.
Back to work with you. You employed slave.
NOTHING that Obama proposes will interfere with your or my right to own guns. Nothing.
But is any of it effective? Or does that not matter, we just have to do "something".
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 22, 7:05am
But is any of it effective? Or does that not matter, we just have to do "something".
That's right, we have to do something, immediately and not stop!
Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!
have you looked into the mirror lately... you certainly will find a zealot alright.
FortWayne
2013 Jan 23, 12:53am
That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.
Tea party talks about small government, private enterprise. Hitler was talking about socializing everything. And by the way, Hitler did disarm civilian population through an equivalent of executive orders at that time.
David Losh
2013 Jan 23, 1:29am
Your such a fucking moron!
Another foolish racist bigot.
Many racist bigots like FortHood and others
Delusional fool.
You know nothing
BIGOT!
Delusional, Lunatic, Moron, Racist bigot.
That's right, we have to do something, immediately and not stop!
Did you just high jack this thread with insults?
Tenpoundbass
2013 Jan 23, 1:50am
He's allowed to do it, it's OK he's a Lawyer for Politicofact.com.
This is how THEY roll.
That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.
Tea party talks about small government, private enterprise. Hitler was talking about socializing everything. And by the way, Hitler did disarm civilian population through an equivalent of executive orders at that time.
I heard Hitler liked to eat meat and drink water.
Thedaytoday
2013 Jan 23, 2:00am
Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!
have you looked into the mirror lately... you certainly will find a zealot alright.
How are those balloons?
« First « Previous Comments 15 - 45 of 45 Search these comments
http://www.youtube.com/embed/k3DKuN2ey80
Which Diane do we believe, the one who wants to ban some guns and gun paraphernalia (a list of superficially defined "assault" weapons), or the one who apparently wants to enforce an outright confiscation?