I'm not even going to argue, because you really don't know what your talking about. But no, not all guns are made to kill humans. There are guns made, for the sole purpose of hunting.
Do you expect us to respect and take seriously someone who claims the development, creation and evolution of the gun was a desire to fire a projectile? Or are you leaving a bit out - like "into the chest of the person you disagree with". Fine! Certain types of of ammunition is designed to kill but even if you shoot me in the head with a .22 with whatever ammunition you deem fit I die! And your non lethal munitions can kill as well. Getting shot in the eye with a rubber bullet is more than likely death. Bean Bag round or Rubber Ball to the temple is probably severe brain damage. You really aren't proving anything or anyone wrong. Javelins can also be used for sport. But for many years they were used to kill people. Simply because javelins are no longer the popular way to kill people does not mean a javelin is not designed to kill. A Nail Gun would be a good example of what you are trying to say real guns are. Nail guns were designed with one purpose - shoot nails into wood. Can you kill someone with it - sure. But is it designed to kill someone? Not really. Guns are designed to kill - just because there happen to be sports that make use of guns this does not exempt them from having the propensity to kill. Especially when the criteria for those guns to compete within those sports happens to be damn near the same criteria needed for killing someone, high velocity, range, accuracy, etc.
Can we all at least agree that prohibition is not the answer? I mean, the founders must've thought that gun rights were pretty important since they put them in right after the 1st amendment.
It's really tough to show anything to you because I really have to walk you through each step and it gets kinda hard. I believe the quote regarding Colt making us equal, that the whole idea, is that the gun is the great equalizer. Well, access to a gun then becomes the new problem. You see, every time a problem is addressed the solution usually brings along with it problems of it's own. In the case of your quote where it alludes that the gun made it possible for even the meekest of men and women to defend themselves against the strongest of antagonists it still has a problem of it's own - access to a gun. The argument made is that equality is not something endowed/bestowed or indelible but something that is earned upon access or possession of a firearm. So, I was just pointing that out. And that wasn't a straw man. That was a question, yes I fucked up my punctuation but it should not have been hard to construe. But this is the second time you have incorrectly used that argument fallacy, you need to seriously research it so that you can use it correctly. A hypothetical example would have been: "Yeah, sure, guns are made to fire projectiles - at jews. That's why people like you want your guns, so you can shoot jews. Well Fuck You you anti-Semite bastard. You think Hitler was so awesome and you're the type who want to teach Mein Kampf in schools so you can brainwash our children. Well I hate Nazi Scum Trash like you." See how I took what you said and created my own fantasy based on nothing - That's a straw man argument. I drew conclusions about you based on no facts to back them up and made you into a weak position that is easy to beat up on - a straw man! Also, the first question in that sentence cites directly where you have stated in a previous post that the purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile - it was even quoted. So I'm assuming you were referring to the second sentence.
The first amendment doesn't say anything about guns. It says we have the right "to bear arms". That could mean anything from a knife to a nuclear warhead.
That's why I'm asking you politely for sources and you can't seem to come up with any. Way to make up statistics, then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. So what, this gun that is made for the "sole purpose of hunting" is somehow not going to kill a human if it is used against one? Are there super high-tech computers in those guns that can determine if the target that is being aimed at is human or the animal it was apparently specifically made to shoot at? Will it not shoot at a human? What is preventing it from being able to kill a human? Why do you think manufacturers don't label "Kill Anything!" or "Kill Humans!" on the box, can you think of any reason? Guns aren't made to kill humans, or to kill ducks, or to kill bears or wolves or rabbits. Guns are made to kill. It doesn't matter what the target is, and some guns kill with precision at long ranges, others are capable of firing a high amount of rounds in a short amount of time. You can say your gun shoots .454 Casull bullets to kill bears, but you're simultaneously saying that it will kill multiple people with one bullet. Speaking of which; do you know what guns were made for? Can you perceive what they were used for? You really are thick if you don't think firearms are around because people want each other dead. But let's go back even further: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Chinese_Gunpowder_Formula.JPG A Chinese gunpowder formula dating back to ~1044 in this book: Wujing Zongyao - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (hint: look at what the literal translation is)
Right after the 1st amendment? That could mean the 2nd amendment... Can you take a wild guess on what they could have meant? Also, there is an extremely large amount of literature available that will piece together what society was like during the times of the founders. Even though I have not done any extensive research myself, I can assure you they did not mean nuclear warheads and they certainly didn't mean knives either. They meant guns. But I can't convince you; what do I know, I'm only 21 and I think everyone is ignorant and I'm always right. I seem to be stuck in a rut! Anyways, if you so wish to examine the meaning behind the word "arms", I'm sure you will find some perception-shattering information. By the way, have you ever heard of the "Army" ?
The whole discussion is moot because Americans love their guns and will never give them up. I know I won't. No matter what kind of legislation might pass, I'll stay anonymous.
I'm pretty sure they didn't mean nuclear warheads either The constitution is written to be fluid and open to interpretation. If they meant guns specifically, then they would have said "guns"? Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is the word "gun" even mentioned. The constitution gives us the right to bear arms... not guns. So explain to me, what is unconstitutional about owning a nuclear warhead?
Double post: Sure thing... Arms | Define Arms at Dictionary.com noun 1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms. (but not exclusively firearms) Related Words for: arms implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons system, blazon (nuclear warheads certainly fit here, don't they) 10. bear arms, a. to carry weapons. b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces: His religious convictions kept him from bearing arms, but he served as an ambulance driver with the Red Cross. 11. take up arms, to prepare for war; go to war: to take up arms against the enemy. 12. under arms, ready for battle; trained and equipped: The number of men under arms is no longer the decisive factor in warfare. 13. up in arms, ready to take action; indignant; outraged: There is no need to get up in arms over such a trifle. (by this definition, the right to bear arms could simply mean that we have the right to join the military)
Do you think that, around the 1780s-1790s, people back then used the same vernacular as they do today? I don't understand if you're purposely trying to argue semantics, or if you really can't wrap your mind around the concept behind the wording. "arms" back then was a word that was used to refer to that which we refer to nowadays as "guns". At certain points in history, they were known as other things as well! Imagine that! As I said, though, you don't have to believe me (you wouldn't anyways), you can read some literature from that time period to get a good understanding of what "arms" meant. You're talking about the same thing. Also, thanks for linking me to dictionary.com; was that around in 1791 when the word "arms" was used in the 2nd amendment? If not, then I suggest you search for something that is actually relevant to the use of the word as it appears in that context. I don't think the Constitution has any relevant opinion on nuclear weaponry, but way to try to argue that guns and nuclear weapons are the same thing. I've never met a person who equates the killing of 100,000+ people in a single instant with the Constitutional right to bear arms in a necessary attempt to secure the freedom of the state. You are talking about the complete and total destruction of any and every form of life within a five mile radius, as well as a simultaneous raping of the land, the air, and the water, for generations to come. I think you may have completely missed the purpose of the second amendment while you were attempting to be uber-technical about the meaning of one word.
After seeing that other thread about the gov putting up unmanned drones in american skys to spy on us I am even more for the right to bear arms. honestly wtf how can anyone be againest the right to bear arms when the gov is doing crazy shit like that...
well, that ^ interpretation may be fine for you... but i'm a hardcore, 'word for word' constitutionalist, and i dont fuck around when it comes to exercising my right to bear arms.
Very very true, in fact the entire constitution is written in this manner as to serve the purpose of applying to situations that would surely arise as the society and technology progressed. They did this is full faith that the people and the government would work together to define this criteria in a manner that suits the given time. Sucks that this concept is lost sometimes... And to the people who think that smalls arms would mean nothing in a fight against the government, your entirely wrong. A civil war would be the hardest type of war for the government to fight. Their nukes, bombs, gunships, etc would be out of the window considering the people fighting against the government would be in and among the civilians. A civil war would NOW would in no way resemble our first civil war, where there was a clear dividing line of where the enemy lived. A civil war now would very closely resemble the " war on terror" with a MUCH smaller margin of error for the government to wiggle around in. I have a hard time believing the American Service Men and Women would drop bombs in their backyards. Regardless of what their government orders. The fighting would be mostly restricted to small arms, covert operations. How do i know this? I am Illuminati, and i have come to tell you all that your f*cked.
hence the old saying"the pen is mighty'r than the sword"....... thanks thats much better.... i think most"Americans "would not like being included in your gross generalizations.if your penis extender didn't work get a bigger one...(or smaller...lol..).Oh yeah,speaking of retards; congress is passing a law prohibiting it's use(the word retard & all its variations) in congress,& removing it from historical documents(i.e. congressional records)....can u say PC POLICE!!!(STOP THINKING & PUT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE WE CAN CENSOR THEM......so what do want to be called then... hmmm....bow & arrows were made to pierce the tough hide of dangerous game from a safer distance,or easier than getting close enough to use a spear.a knife was designed to cut flesh & plant fibres. the sword is just a variation,designed to be bigger than the other guys sword(knife ) ,so as to gain advantage both offensively & for defense(fencing swords are not).hammers were most definatly designed to smash objects with greater force, in a safer manner.most probably were used first to break the bones of large game,to get to marrow.and yes guns were designed to kill...i.e.a bullit in the chest of the game being hunted.yeah the military is proving their superior weaponry is infallible against antiquated rifles & pistols in afganistan & iraq ....the founding fathers used the guns they had primarily for hunting to defend themselves from a tyrannical govt,so where doesn't that fit into this discution? i finished the sentance properly for you aboveso now it's the evolution were discussing fine.extremly large,powerful gun calibers were almost all designed to meet the needs of african big game hunters& later adopted by military(just like the tennesse long rifle that was designed especially for game quickly became much sought after during the civil war).the javeline was intended for dispatching cornered game &hunting dangerous or swift game originally .javelinas perhaps?just as u said above,just because guns are the popular way to kill people these days(guns still kill more animals each year than humans )does not mean they were designed soley or primarily to kill humans. hmm golf is a sport where high velocity,range,&accuracy are extremely important....therefore golf clubs were designed to kill humans??? your logic fails in the light of historical fact my conclusions are based on historical facts,so do you care to refute them. see post below NO! the Constitution was not meant to be"fluid & open to interpretation" guns were specifically refered to in the vernacular of the day.so please explain what this right to bear arms was meant to do for me if it wasn't to insure i can keep a gun? boy,thats the way to ignore the rest of a definition.i also think#'s,1,10a,11,12,13,are exactly what founding fathers had in mind according to the documents we have & the circumstances they were experienceing.hmmmm i wonder what #'s2-9 were?#s 3,4 7,&9 conviently left out huh...