I’d laugh if it wasn’t true…
Only in America people,
The gun in question: an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle.
awww, how cute….
About the Author (Author Profile)
hiding in the openComments (285)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Snowflakes in Hell » Taunting the Progressives | July 14, 2008
- Snowflakes in Hell » Bigot Says What? | July 15, 2008
- Call me Ahab » Blog Archive » We have facts and statistics | July 15, 2008
- Outside the Perimeter: Comments out of the Gazoo « kavips | July 23, 2008
And why does it matter what type of gun it was?
Did you even READ the article? Did it say anywhere that he was injured in a firearms related incident? NO – he had an injury and couldn’t organize the event. that’s all.
Your bias is showing, and you jumped the gun on this one.
I’m with Mike on this one, the injury didn’t have anything to do with guns.
and just FYI AR-15s are rarely if ever used in crime and can be purchased at several locations across Delaware
I didn’t jump anything, but all over the article when I saw it. I didn’t say anyf’ing thing about the injury. The article did.
You can be with Mike all you want. That’s your business and in a few states you can even be married if you want.
MY point is it is a CHURCH giving away a gun. If you are fine with it so be it. But goddamn, people were all over Barrack for his “clinging to guns and religion”
And hidey hooooo, lookie lookie, a freaking church in Ok is giving not just some sling shot, but a gun. Well AIN’T that Ironic?
I can see Jesus on the summit, handing out bread, wine and Ammo…How Christian.
Not only that Tom, but RIFLES of any type are almost never used in crime.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
Keep in mind an AR-15 is ONE type of rifle and I don’t even want to guess how many different rifle models have been produced since guns were invented. I
‘d be surprised if even one person per year is killed with an AR. Regardless, the numbers certainly aren’t supportive of the “Assault Weapons are DANGEROUS and must be banned” hysterics that you anti-gunners like to push.
OH MY GOD! THE SKY IS FALLING!!
The church is giving away a piece of property to someone who can legally own that property. So what? It’s a big deal because you don’t like the “icky” gun they’re giving away?
By the way, there are church pastors in this country with CCW permits who carry in church.
Haha, the gun you posted a picture of is a California neutered AR. Notice the weird looking hump type thing behind the trigger that she’s holding onto? That’s there because CA says you can’t have an “evil” pistol grip on the gun.
The church is giving away a piece of property to someone who can legally own that property.
Yep, just some simple piece of property. Almost like an Ipod or a cell phone. So practical for a teen.
By the way, there are church pastors in this country with CCW permits who carry in church.
and that is very, very, very sad to hear. I’m sure Mohammed would be proud.
Run for the hills, it’s the Hello Kitty Militia! This picture cracks me up.
It’s a big deal because you don’t like the “icky” gun they’re giving away?
it’s a big deal my friend because as someone who has been to church a few times in his life and is pretty sure he knows the message of Jesus and God. I just don’t see how you can dovetail a killing machine into a message of peace and tolerance.
A gun is a tool, no more no less.
Haha, the gun you posted a picture of is a California neutered AR. Notice the weird looking hump type thing behind the trigger that she’s holding onto? That’s there because CA says you can’t have an “evil” pistol grip on the gun
oh so that isn’t one of those cool killing machines that can mow down a few dozen people with a few short bursts?
I’d hate to buy some pansy gun that kills people and not look cool. I can see it now.
“What are you in for?”
“I killed some prick with a neutered AR-15”
“HAHAHAHAH HEY John! This loser killed some dude with his neutered Ar!”
sigh…
“Yep, just some simple piece of property. Almost like an Ipod or a cell phone. So practical for a teen. ”
Right, because they’re just handing the gun over to some kid. They’re giving it away, but it still has to be transferred to the “winner” via a FFL dealer, that winner has to go to the FFL, fill out the paperwork & background checks etc. In other words, he has to be legally able to buy the weapon.
Stop using BS emotional appeals insinuating that the church is handing out guns to kids like they would Ipods.
“and that is very, very, very sad to hear. I’m sure Mohammed would be proud.”
Why? Are you afraid of your pastor? Do you think he’s violent? If not why would you suddenly be afraid of him if you knew he carried a gun? That doesn’t change his demeanor any.
“oh so that isn’t one of those cool killing machines that can mow down a few dozen people with a few short bursts?”
Nope, none of the evil “assault weapons” you’re so afraid of are capable of burst fire or automatic fire. They all shoot one round pull of the trigger.
and just FYI AR-15s are rarely if ever used in crime and can be purchased at several locations across Delaware
Question: Have they been used in our criminal invasion of Iraq?
Just wondering.
Right, because they’re just handing the gun over to some kid. They’re giving it away, but it still has to be transferred to the “winner” via a FFL dealer, that winner has to go to the FFL, fill out the paperwork & background checks etc. In other words, he has to be legally able to buy the weapon.
Stop using BS emotional appeals insinuating that the church is handing out guns to kids like they would Ipods.
oh, woops, I’m sorry, the proper paperwork was filed and would be filed by the church. My Bad, here I thought they were giving away a killing machine with out proper documentation. I take it back. They aren’t irresponsible at all.
You are the one that relagated it to a “piece of property” mikey. So an Ipod is a “piece of property”. the only difference I see is one can blow out your ear drums while the other one can blow out your ear drum, ear canal, ear tissue, brain matter, skull and I think keep going through a window to take out someone else…
Mike,
You are just plain silly if you don’t see the irony in a church event centered on giving away guns.
As to gun-toting pastors, I’m sure there are some, just as there are pedophile priests and pastors who rob their flock blind. Any organized religion has it’s share of sinners and nuts. That doesn’t make them the role model for the rest of us.
jason,
The pink ones? I doubt it. They aren’t cool apparently
“Question: Have they been used in our criminal invasion of Iraq?
Just wondering.”
Yes and no. The rifle our troops use is the M16. The AR-15 is the semi-automatic civilian version of the military weapon.
Also, it wasn’t a criminal invasion. Congress authorized the president to use military force. Furthermore it can easily be argued that Saddam’s wanton violation of UN weapons resolutions (13 times btw) What good are UN resolutions if they’re not backed up by force and there are no real consequences for breaking them?
Stop using BS emotional appeals insinuating that the church is handing out guns to kids like they would Ipods.
oh and you are right, apparently handing out an Ipod with the video ability could promote porn or something worse like listening to Creed. Better to stick with the gun. Much safer
don’t get sucked in Jas….. 🙂 don’t do it 🙂
“As to gun-toting pastors, I’m sure there are some, just as there are pedophile priests and pastors who rob their flock blind. Any organized religion has it’s share of sinners and nuts. That doesn’t make them the role model for the rest of us.
”
Nice comparision there Rebecca, comparing law-abiding citizens who also happen to be pastors, and who believe in having the ability to defend themselves (and their flock) to robbers and pedophiles is disgusting. Really classy… really.
“oh and you are right, apparently handing out an Ipod with the video ability could promote porn or something worse like listening to Creed. Better to stick with the gun. Much safer”
Well the gun certainly doesn’t promote killing, death, and indiscriminate violence.
Nor does it promote turning the other cheek…
I’d like to see her other cheek.
Liberal Geek – And who’s doing that? Law abiding gun owners aren’t committing crimes, and they aren’t turning the other cheek. It’s not their repsonsibility to give up their rights because violent criminals won’t behave like decent human beings.
go ahead Mike, stand strong my brother!
defend a church giving away a gun similar to the one we are using in the Iraq war. YOU GO man!
But let’s be honest, the Muslim faith is the one that promotes violence
Well the gun certainly doesn’t promote killing, death, and indiscriminate violence.
what exactly does the AR-15, a selective-fire prototype submitted for consideration as a military infantry rifle later adopted as the M16
promote then?
“what exactly does the AR-15, a selective-fire prototype submitted for consideration as a military infantry rifle later adopted as the M16
promote then?”
You are telling me that a gun promotes violence all by itself? You’ve got to be kidding me? Do spoons promote obesity?
How about things like marksmanship, responsibility, safe gun handling, fun, personal achievement etc. CULTURE promotes violence. The “gun culture” (I.E. that of us gun owners) does not promote violence. The “thug culture” is responsible for that.
AR-15 is the general vernacular for the semi-automatic variant of the M16/M4. It’s actually trademarked by Colt, so it’s kind of like people using the term “Xerox” machine to mean a copier.
Yes, AR was short for Armalite, which designed the AR-10 and AR-15 prototypes. Once they were accepted by the US military, the trademark was adopted by Colt for the civilian market. There are precious few prototypes for the AR-15 and AR-10 in the hands of collectors that are capable of automatic fire, and those are very tightly controlled by the federal government.
You are telling me that a gun promotes violence all by itself? You’ve got to be kidding me? Do spoons promote obesity?
you think you are clever with these analogies don’t you. You got done that one smiled and hit enter didn’t ya? The fact remains that a spoon from 200 yards out cant blow a hole threw a watermelon.
So in an attempt to make yourself look wise you are doing the opposite. Comparing a Spoon to a gun has to be your best one yet.
The church A CHRISTIAN Church gave out this instrument of death. Not just some piece of property Mike. They choose a gun. Try to minize the object as some stand alone piece of property like a sofa or a spoon. But it is a gun mike. A GUN that is used by our military. It wasn’t some vintage pistol. Some old school collectors item. It wasn’t an Ipod, a gold plated bible. It wasn’t a cell phone, tickets to a concert.
Troll attack! Troll attack!
The only way to kill trolls is starve them to death.
no all, trolls are killed with guns. especially ones blessed by the church
Donviti –
Has hit a wingnut gusher with this one.
“The fact remains that a spoon from 200 yards out cant blow a hole throw a watermelon.
So in an attempt to make yourself look wise you are doing the opposite. Comparing a Spoon to a gun has to be your best one yet.”
Actually the analogy works perfectly. The gun can’t blow a hole through a watermelon without a person loading the gun, lining up the sights, and pulling the trigger.
A gun is merely an object, capable of nothing without direct manipulation by a human. In that context a spoon is exactly the same. The spoon is merely an object. It is no more responsible for shoveling excessive amounts of food into your mouth and causing obesity than the gun is for putting a hole in the watermelon.
Both are objects DTB. Both cannot act on their own nor control the mind of their user to compel them to act irresponsibly.
Mike – my point is that a Christian church should be promoting non-violence and turning the other cheek. Sure, I know that guns aren’t violent, the people using them are. That said, if there was a march of 1000 priests down the street or 100 armed priests, one would be a hell of a lot more intimidating.
I just wonder what the response from the wingnuts would be if there were a mosque in Iraq handing out AR-15’s after Friday prayers your innate right to bear arms would be questioned.
You made the point last week that your right to bear arms was a right the presupposes the Constitution. If this is the case, then Iraqis have the same right. Why do you suppose that we are confiscating their guns? Certainly the guns aren’t bad, it’s the people using them in bad ways.
DTB, have you read Luke 22:36? He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Jesus ordered his followers to obtain a weapon if they didn’t already have one. So if you’re a follower of Jesus, have you followed His instruction? Do you have a weapon?
Umm… the AR-15 is the most popular target rifle in competition today. I know of a number of churches that have shooting teams, and know a few Rabbis who shoot. There’s nothing in the Judeo-Christian tradition that says there’s anything wrong with shooting at paper targets. There’s not even anything that says you’re not allowed to defend yourself, should that become necessary. So other than your desire to feel superior to these people who’s cultural values you either don’t understand or abhor, what is your real argument?
liberalgeek, I find it disgusting that our forces are disarming Iraqi civilians. If the US really wanted to win Iraq, we’d give every man and woman in Iraq over the age of 16 a good month of militia training and issue each one a rifle.
And I for one would not feel intimidated by 10,000 armed priests marching (and I’m not catholic either).
Rob,
I could be wrong on this, but my understanding was that families were permitted to keep one firearm, and a reasonable amount of ammunition, for self-protection.
What if Barry’s old church gave out gangsta rap CDs to kids? ’cause I heard that gangsta rap was invented by The Man to get the brothas to kill each other.
uh oh, we just quoted the bible over here…
things are going to get messy.
I’m a big fan of it, you can pretty much pull any quote out of it to make your point.
I forgot, guns were invented to shoot clay disks…not kill.
My bad, this whole thread was a waste of time. I see the light now.
g,
that was funny, you are coming around my man
sebastion,
I could be wrong on this, Repeat that 100 times before you comment over here and it will save you a bunch of time making yourself look foolish 🙂
Swords were invented to be used as weapons too, but fencing is no less a sport because of that. The same thing could be said about bows and archery. In fact, there would seem to be a long history of sports developing out of martial implements.
Well, not to get sidetracked on that issue, but I had heard the CPA had tried to implement that rule, but had no idea whether it was current practice. This NYT article would indicate it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html
“To qualify, Sunni fighters would have to turn in their heavy weapons — anything beyond rifles and pistols — within 10 days. The offer applies to Mosul and the surrounding region, Nineveh Province, a troubled area inhabited by Sunni Arabs and Kurds.”
Well duh, Sebastian. Wasn’t there some English king who outlawed soccer because young men were out on the pitch instead of practicing their archery? Talk about tyranny!
So DTB, are you going to address anything Sebastian has said or just resort to petty attacks like the one above? You seem to be doing far more of the latter than the former.
“The church A CHRISTIAN Church gave out this instrument of death.”
Instrument of death huh?….. So I guess you’d be just as outraged if they’d given away a set of steak knives or some aluminum baseball bats. Both could just as likely be “instruments of death” as a gun.
mike,
why were guns created?
I like how you call me DTB by the way. I mean seriously, It’s a title that I wear very proudly. I would prefer though if you could put Mr. DTB in front of that from now on.
Hey DTB, you started talking about Jesus first. If you’re going to imply He’d be against something, bring some evidence.
you are aware that it wasnt until the KKK started firebombing black churches that the laws prohibiting guns in churches started to be developed… the white buddies of the KKK that were passing the laws didnt want their friends to be shot by the blacks that they were bombing…
in fact up until that time, a bunch of the states had laws on the books that required people to appear at the church armed if they were able… now they were not enforced, but the did exist
Why were guns created? Because people couldn’t throw rocks at 2000 fps.
Guns are not designed to kill. They are designed to launch a projectile. You could make a bullet out of foam rubber and regardless of the design of the gun, you’re pretty much going to get welts. Same goes with loading up a shotgun with rock salt – Nasty wound, but you’ll live.
The bullet design is what is specifically formulated to kill or wound. In fact, the M-16’s primary round, the 5.56mm / .223 caliber was designed specifically to wound soldiers rather than kill. So, maybe you want to revise your statement to “The church A CHRISTIAN Church gave out this instrument of wounding.”?
robb,
you aren’t mike, but I’ll bite anyway.
So, why were guns created? and you say “They are designed to launch a projectile”
do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Go ahead say it…you know what it was made for my friend and it wasn’t for “launching a projectile”
come on my man, oh wait here goes another “shot” get it? shot?
Why were were projectile launchers created? LOL i giggled when I said projectile launcher
Oh, another thing. You make the common mistake of confusing the tool with the intent. Cops carry guns so that they can project superior force if needed, not so they can kill indiscriminately. Was the gun ‘designed’ for them differently than the one I bought?
My mother would not be able to overpower even a weakling of a man. Chemotherapy plays hell on your body. But she can still pull a trigger, and that can help equalize the odds and make an attacker think twice. Are you insinuating that my mother is a killer, who’s only purpose in buying a firearm is to murder?
Do you imply that I, Sebastian, or Mike are killers simply because we own firearms? If death is their only purpose, then most of my guns are defective as they’ve never achieved their goals (one most certainly has since it was used in WWII).
However, reading your last comment, I see you’re not interested in conversation, nor do you possess the ability to open your mind.
Here’s an answer, though. You’re not open minded, but others who read this conversation will notice who is calm and forthright and those who have no argument but snark and insults.
Projectiles can be launched for numerous reasons. I shot at the range yesterday and put lots and lots of holes in targets. Some people shoot steel silhouettes, others clay pigeons. Some people hunt. Some try extreme long distance.
In fact, there are over 2 billion bullets expended every year in the US alone. If the gun’s primary purpose is to kill, then you’d see a culling of most of the population within a year.
Are you going to try to argue your point or do you have no valid data to back you up and have to result to childish attacks?
yawn…You make the common mistake of confusing the tool with the intent.
No i don’t. It’s not a mistake.
Yes it is.
Are you insinuating that my mother is a killer
can I insert a mom joke?
Jas? Geek? to soon?
Do you imply that I, Sebastian, or Mike are killers simply because we own firearms? If death is their only purpose, then most of my guns are defective as they’ve never achieved their goals (one most certainly has since it was used in WWII).
do you guys have like some secret cult you belong to where you chant this stuff in your sleep? It really is amazing. I applaud how well organized you are.
Prove me wrong then, Delaware. Show me the logical steps how I’m wrong. I posit that without human intervention, any tool cannot perform any task. I also posit that a firearm in my hands poses no danger to you at all insofar as you do not initiate force against me. I also state, as fact, that just having a firearm does not *cause* you to do anything. A man will not rob a bank simply because he owns a gun. Therefore the intent of the person is what is important, not the tool itself.
You confuse the two.
But I bet you can’t prove me wrong.
if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?
if man fly upside down, do he have crack up?
if man can debate well, is he a master debator?
Do you practice insults and avoiding answering questions that challenge your belief in your sleep?
Prove me wrong. If our views are simplistic and full of error, then you should be able to indicate how ownership of a particular object causes a person to perform certain acts.
I also posit that a firearm in my hands poses no danger to you at all insofar as you do not initiate force against me.
so why do you need it at all then?
why carry around a “projectile launcher” (I still giggled) if your intent isn’t to kill or hurt someone else?
DTB asks
why were guns created?
The very first guns were cannons and they were built to smash castle walls so the swordsmen and pikemen could get inside. Only later were they shrunk down to hand held weapons in order to defeat the armored knight.
And I realize you know nothing about weapons, but Robb’s statement about the M-16 ammo being designed to wound rather than kill is absolutely correct. The idea is to drain your enemies resources. A wounded soldier can no longer actively fight but still requires food, water, medicine, transport and a paycheck. A dead soldier is a sack of meat, cut your losses, move on.
I guess in your mind, the church should give away bibles were genocide is advocated along with pedophilia and incest.
Very Christian indeed!
Do you practice insults and avoiding answering questions that challenge your belief in your sleep?
now that was funny. I could replace your name with any of the half dozen 2A authoritarians that have graced the best site in the state and not known the difference.
Are you going to try to argue your point or do you have no valid data to back you up and have to result to childish attacks?
He seems to be way too invested in the childish attacks to engage in any actual…you know…debate.
I mean, it’s so much easier to be cutesy and obtuse than to actually make and support a point.
I guess in your mind, the church should give away bibles were genocide is advocated along with pedophilia and incest.
you don’t want in on my mind bro. That is a different topic all together 🙂
let’s stick to “projectile launching” shall we.
did you know that delaware has some great projectile launching each year the first weekend in November?
“I also posit that a firearm in my hands poses no danger to you at all insofar as you do not initiate force against me.
so why do you need it at all then?”
Are you saying that on this planet, people do not initiate force against others unjustly?
Is that what you’re really saying?
I mean, it’s so much easier to be cutesy and obtuse than to actually make and support a point.
I KNOW. When you can’t get a bunch of “2a’ers” to tell you that guns were made to kill, or to admit that a church giving an assualt weapon could be wrong and not convey a very Christian philosophy why bother?
So far, guns have been compared with spoons, cars, fire extenguishers, steak knives and I’m not sure what else.
Seriously? why bother arguing a rock is a rock when someone wants to call it “ancient representation of compressed minerals”
you guys are a hoot. It doesn’t get any better. What’s great is I’m doing this on my own. Even my back up isn’t coming to my rescue unlikeyou all that obviously “circled the wagons and sounded the alarm”
hheeeeeeehaaawwwww go get em boys. Use your “projectile launchers”
It’s the attack of the Keyboard Commando’s!!!!! Run!
When you can’t get a bunch of “2a’ers” to tell you that guns were made to kill, that a church giving away gun that is being used in Iraq could be wrong why bother?
*Sigh* No, no it’s not.
You’re a sad little person, aren’t you?
So, you admit then that you have no proof of your statements?
You imply that guns are designed to kill. I provide some facts regarding the wounding nature of the one rifle you were discussing. I also indicated that very few people have ever been killed by the gun itself, but rather a bullet or other projectile. I even show that you can load nonlethal rounds into practically any firearm and render its ability to kill to nothing.
So, I’m proving your statement is wrong. And the best you can do is insult.
Typical.
(that should read)
“wounding nature of the one rifle *round*”
Another factual mistake by DTB – the gun that was to be given away by the church is NOT used in Iraq. It LOOKS like the gun used in Iraq, but it doesn’t have the selective fire and can only shoot one round per pull of the trigger.
Putting stickers on your car won’t make it NASCAR ready. Shoving your wedding tackle between your legs doesn’t make you a woman. Looking like a weapon used by the military doesn’t make it a weapon used by the military.
“did you know that Delaware has some great projectile launching each year the first weekend in November?”
Hah! Ted Kennedy’s car has smashed more pumpkins than my Illudium Q-38 Pumpkin Modulator!
So DTB, why don’t you unlighten us all by explaining the difference between the AK-47, the SAR-1 and the WASR-10.
Hint, same as the difference between an M16 and the AR-15.
Can you please provide one shread of evidence that AR-15’s are being used in Iraq?
I’ve been trying to post a detailed response but am having no luck. Do you have a length limit on comments?
I guess so…let me try breaking it up into sections.
Part 1:
In answer to the direct question (which DTB will either ignore or ineffectually attempt to ridicule), As Robb said, guns were invented to expel a projectile at a high rate of speed in a controlled direction. This force can be harnessed for any number of purposes and can be used as effectively to prevent “killing” as to cause it.
Arguably, firearms were designed as weapons (arguably, because the first use of propellants used in firearms was for entertainment…i.e. fireworks), but any weapon can be used either defensively or offensively. The very characteristics that make firearms effective offensive weapons, make them effective defensive weapons (and, according to some, are used for the latter much more often than the former).
Not to mention the basic fact that they can also be used for sport and recreation…which was the activity in question in this case.
I find it interesting that the gun was being given away as a part of a shooting competition…a very normal occurrence…that happened to be sponsored by a church…yet those who oppose the action insist upon characterizing it as simply a church giving away a gun.
The Boy Scouts sponsor shooting competitions, 4H sponsors shooting competitions, schools sponsor shooting competitions but a Church? Perish the thought.
Part 2:
Since others have brought up the Christian aspect of it, I feel it appropriate to respond:
Christ DID exhort his Disciples to buy an “assault weapon”. The Sword was the “assault weapon” of the day.
Reading the entire story in context, it becomes apparent that His point was that He was soon going to be departing for His Heavenly home…while He had been on earth, His disciples had wanted for nothing. Money, food, protection, etc were provided for them. He was basically telling them “I’m not going to be around for much longer so you’d better be prepared to take care of yourselves.” Among the preparations to be made was the obtaining of at least a minimal number of weapons with which to effect their self defense.
Regarding the command to “turn the other cheek”: You are aware that the slapping of a cheek is an insult, not a deadly threat? He was not condemning self-defense in that passage, He was saying don’t respond to insults with anger or violence. There is significant difference between not responding to an insult with anger, and refusing to defend the life that is a gift from God.
Some would contend that Christians have a responsibility to defend their own lives and those of the innocent from violent predators by whatever means necessary.
And that doesn’t even address the the obvious question that the “Christians must be non-violent” argument elicits: Does that mean that Christians are precluded from careers in Law Enforcement or the Military? How can a Police Officer uphold a Christian faith that views all violence as sinful?
An interesting argument indeed…but it, unfortunately, has nothing at all to do with the story in question. Punching holes in a piece of paper from 100 yards away is not an act of violence by any stretch of the imagination.
Robb is correct that guns are designed to hurl small objects at great speeds. That is the basic definition of a “gun”. But it is such that they are highly effective at severely damaging living tissue, which makes them useful for hunting, self-defense, and yes, murder.
So yes, I carry a “gun” or “projectile launcher” (analogous terms, btw) because it turns out that hurling a chunk of copper and load at 1200 feet per second is remarkably effective at disrupting the biological functions of an attacker to a sufficient degree to make him stop attacking.
I mean, if you want to argue all killing is equally evil, by all means, go ahead. But I think most people accept that someone who kills in defense of his or her own life has committed no moral wrong.
And Part 3:
Shooting is a viable, enjoyable, educational sport and is an excellent sport for the young as it requires no particular strength, agility or physical prowess. It is also the ultimate in equal opportunity sports for the same reason…women and girls are at no disadvantage and regularly win in co-ed competitions.
Finally, according to a study conducted by the US DOJ*, children who are exposed to firearms in a supervised, structured environment are significantly less likely to commit crimes of any type, and violent crimes in particular, than children who are exposed to firearms illegally…and even less likely than children who are not exposed to firearms at all.
With that in mind…is the Church’s purpose better served by ignoring this data and embracing a hysterical fear of an inanimate object, or by encouraging responsible and safe activities in this regard?
*I couldn’t find a link to the actual study, but Here is a link to a paper that discusses it and cites it in footnotes.
It LOOKS like the gun used in Iraq, but it doesn’t have the selective fire and can only shoot one round per pull of the trigger.
my bad I mistaked it for a Gun that kills people…whoops
you guys are so cute defending guns.
And you’re fairly weak looking not being able to counter us.
I’m still trying to get someone to tell me why guns, aka “projectile launchers” were created?
I see a lot of words above that explains rights to own but I really don’t give to shits about you wanting to own a gun. I find it amusing the lengths you go to say it is your birthright as if when the bible was written one of the commandments has your right to own guns.
Quite honestly I’m not even sure what you are arguing against at this point.
My whole point is that here we have a church, giving away a gun. I find it ironic.
Because, now read slowly ladies, because as far as I know there are tons of other things a church could give away to teens. BUT the church choose to give away an instrument that was created to “launch projectiles” at other living things and kill them.
Not an Ipod, a cell phone, a gift card or a trip to six flags.
Now, the nutroots have rallied and have converged on this humble little blog to muddy the waters and defend this. Fine, but not one of you nuts will admit guns were made to kill.
You guys go OUT of your way to not say it in fact. You use analogies of spoons for god’s sake. You call guns, “projectile launchers” Holy shit, It is amazing actually but at the same time it’s not.
My god and my Jesus aint handing out guns to get new blood (pun intended) ready to uphold his word. My god is benevolent. My church, I think, doesn’t try to recruit with weapons that can kill I could be wrong though. Catholocism is taking a beating these days.
So I posted it this cute little story. The fact that you ladies swarmed over here to defend something, I’m not really sure what though proves my point rather well I think that people who are so fervent about gun ownership are nuts.
You guys are over sensitive. You can’t admit a gun was made to kill people? You don’t see a gun as a violent instrument? You don’t know the meaning of comprimise because if you give up any inch then god knows what you’d have to give up next.
OH MY GOD…someone just said guns kill….ATTACK. Not a shocking response from someone so adamant about wanting to own a gun.
You church does recruit with weapons that can kill. You pray by folding your hands. Your hands can easily kill. You have potluck dinners in which you could poison food (or Kool Aid a la Jim Jones). You could over-baptize and drown people.
No, I don’t see the gun as a violent instrument any more than I see a penis as a rape tool. Sure, it can be used that way and many men do, but that doesn’t mean penis = forced sex. More people are stabbed than shot (and 80% of gunshot victims survive) yet I still do not view the knife as anything malevolent.
Compromise? I’ll compromise right now. I want practically no laws on the books concerning guns. There are 20,000 laws currently there.
Which 10,000 are you willing to give up in the name of compromise?
How did DL attract all these fuckin’ gun nuts?
By opening his mouth on something he knows nothing about.
Would you like to try to logically dismantle our arguments?
Prove to me that in and of itself, a gun is a violent mechanism that has a sole purpose of killing. You’ll need to show that nobody uses them for self defense, target practice, skeet shooting, etc. You’ll need to indicate how many deaths are caused by each of the 270,000,000 firearms in the US today.
I’d suggest you try to do it calmly and rationally, but so far that doesn’t seem to be feasible with people who think metal and plastic have mystical powers to do evil on their own.
Oh, by the way Mike Matthews, I’m sorry we’re in here interrupting your echo chamber.
Would you prefer that dissenting opinions not show up and upset your worldviews?
You’ll notice us “fucking gun nuts” haven’t resorted to snide insults to get our points across. You guys…. not so much.
You guys go OUT of your way to not say it in fact.
And you go out of your way to avoid any points that you can’t counter…which would be…um…all of them.
You use sarcasm, hyperbole, insults and innuendo to avoid, avoid avoid. You don’t directly address anything…because you can’t.
We answered your question: No…firearms were NOT designed specifically to kill.
If a gun was “designed to kill”, when it only makes a hole in a piece of paper, did it malfunction?
If a gun was “designed to kill”, when someone successfully uses it to fend off a violent attack but doesn’t fire a shot…did they misuse it?
If a gun was “designed to kill” why do Police Officers carry them? Is the purpose of the Police to kill?
A gun is a tool that was designed to propel an object at a high rate of speed in a controlled direction…nothing more, nothing less.
It can be used to kill (or attempt to kill) or it can be used to make holes in paper. Or to break clay targets. Or to put food on the table. Or to stop a violent attack. Or to effect a peaceful arrest of a violent criminal. Or simply to hang on the wall and look pretty. It can be used by criminals for aggression, or by the law abiding for defense. It is a tool. Period.
You can irrationally try to assign all the evil intents to it you want but that doesn’t change it one iota from the inanimate chunk of wood (or plastic) and metal that it is.
And you STILL mischaracterized a shooting competition sponsored by a church at which a rifle was to be given away as “a Church giving away a gun.” Where I come from, mischaracterizing something in an effort to generate an inaccurate impression is known by another name. We call it “a lie”.
Shit, I can make a gun become a perfect paperweight but that wouldn’t make use of its elementary purpose….which we all know was to start the 100 meter dash… 😉
guns were made to kill people…say it…go ahead…
they weren’t made to shoot clay pigeons
they weren’t made to mix tang with
they weren’t made to eat your cereal with
they were made to kill
Kill prey, people whatever…kill…not tickle, kill.
sure a gun can be USED as a coffee stirrer or a bong. BUT they are made to kill.
why does that hurt your feelings when I say that? Is something that is made to kill another living thing bad? Because I say it is made to kill you guys go all apeshit
when people go to war, how come they don’t pick up spoons and formulate a plan to attack with that?
In answer to the question: Do spoons promote obesity?
Answer: Yes. Portion size has every thing to do w/obesity.
Back to you………for your next moronic arguement.
here I will help you out a little.
Weapon:
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
and here
Assault
2a a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact
hmmm add those together and wow..lookie lookie
A gun is a tool that was designed to propel an object at a high rate of speed in a controlled direction…nothing more, nothing less.
HAHAHAHAHAHA oh that is funny.
I can’t hear you…I’m busy repeating myself over and over again and ignoring anything that I can’t rebut.
If a gun was “designed to kill” why do Police Officers carry them? Is the purpose of the Police to kill?
really? I mean really? you didn’t make the Varsity team for the 2A debate team did you? I mean really?
Why don’t you ask me if a spoon makes people fat too….
sail,
that was good. I din’t think surface pukes knew how to listen either
Prove to me that in and of itself, a gun is a violent mechanism that has a sole purpose of killing
that is a horrible arguement brother . that’s like asking me to prove a shoe was solely designed to walk in…
I gun was made to kill, so however you want to weild THAT power to kill is your choice. Cops wear their guns for several reasons, no? So why are you trying to argue something that makes no sense to argue.
GUNS KILL. If I ask 100 people to list the 5 top things guns do, what the hell do you think is going to be number one?
I can see it now on Family Feud
“We asked 100 people, “What are guns made to do”
Guns, uhhhh….they uhhhhh
oohhh., wait….They propel objects at high rates of speed?
Let me see…They propel objects at high rates of speed
X
ohhhh, wait, I know, I know!
They act as a deterrent to tyranny and oppression
X
Wait, I got it…I got it…
Guns are made to be given away as prizes at churches!
YES that’s it!
woohoooo
que the winning music
que jumping family that has to split 10k between 5 people before taxes…
It’s “queue”, not “que”.
So, is a shotgun loaded with salt rock or rubber pellets designed to kill or not? Because you keep saying over and over that guns kill.
270,000,000 guns in the US and all they can do is kill, yet somehow the population survives.
It’s *almost* like you’re wrong and just can’t admit that a gun has never killed another being of its own volition. Because if you did that, you’re poor little protected world would come crashing down and facts might just leak into your fortress of ignorance.
Do an image search on google for Anschutz Model 54. Is that a gun designed to kill? Or is it a precision instrument designed to very precisely fire projectiles? There are numerous guns that no one would buy for the purpose of killing. Look up Bennelli MP-90. I could be here all night listing guns that are not in any way, shape or form “designed for killing”.
Guns technology may have developed for military applications, but this isn’t the 16th century. Guns can kill. They are very effective at doing so. But the vast majority of them are used for sport or self-protection.
OMG you guys found 2 examples of a gun that won’t kill people…
shocking…
I bet I can find more guns that kill then you can find that don’t
Those guns are quite capable of killing someone, but they are not “designed” for that purpose. What about a trap gun? A nice over under? Designed to kill? Both are very common. Both represent an entire class of firearms. I can even name classes of AR-15s that are “designed” specifically for the purpose of being fabulous target rifles. But what makes that different from an AR-15 that’s supposedly designed to kill? Because it looks blacker? Has a heavier trigger? Lacks a free floating barrel?
beats the shit out of me, I just know that guns were orignally made to kill…
I rest my case
“beats the shit out of me, I just know that guns were orignally made to kill…”
Which means what exactly? Why would it matter if they were “made to kill?” My hands can nurture a child or kill him. Alcohol & Cars weren’t made to kill, but combine both with an irresponsible human and you can produce death. The lethality of ANYTHING, from bare hands to guns is entirely dependent upon the intent of the user.
There are a whole multitude of things that weren’t designed to kill that kill plenty of people every year. Water and buckets. Neither are designed to kill but kids die every year drowning in buckets. Bathtubs were designed for bathing, but people die in those every year. Cars? not designed to kill but plenty of people end up in fatal car accidents every year.
So you see, whether guns were designed to kill or not is entirely irrelevant.
BTW, check this out
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/17/denver-stocks-up-on-pepper-weapon/
Looks alot like an “evil AR-15 assault rifle” except for orange furniture that is easily changed. It is a “gun” since it fires a projectile, yet it is not at all “designed to kill”
I assume by “rest my case” you mean “I concede that I’m wrong.”
“I also state, as fact, that just having a firearm does not *cause* you to do anything.”
To be fair Rob I’ve been around enough hot-headed liberals to know that the presence of a gun very well could cause them to hurt someone. Of course that’s not the guns fault, it’s because they can’t control their emotions, specifically anger.
My children (13 and 15) go to the range on a regular basis. No deaths.
I have carried a pistol day and night for 2 tours in the middle east. No deaths caused directly by that pistol.
Guns are useful for recreation, defense and killing if necessary. Many uses.
Just like cars are for recreation, transportation, or drowning campaign volunteers during adulterous liasons if you are a Kennedy. Many uses.
Zzzz…
“did you know that Delaware has some great projectile launching each year the first weekend in November?”
Pumpkin Chunkin – you know DTB, getting hit with one of those heavy orange projectiles could certainly kill you, and catapults were designed and often used in warfare for that very purpose. Better ban Pumpkin Chunkin.
I tend to think it’s roughly analogous to suggesting that knives are designed to kill. Knives can be used to kill, but they can also be used for other things. No doubt man honed the technology with killing high on his mind, as was the case with firearms.
I also won’t deny that the shooting sports, much like archery and fencing, have either martial origins, or hunting origins.
you guys really need to keep your shit straight, b/c at this point I don’t think any of you are on the same page
Because of the acceleration, they freeze the pumpkins now so they won’t blow to pieces. Hate to get hit with one of those. Be liked getting whacked in the head with one of Hillary’s thighs, only warmer.
“How did DL attract all these fuckin’ gun nuts?”
Because DTB / Don Viti was a huge asshole and bad-mouthed a dead marine. He said something that 99.9% of the population would consider him an asshole for saying and I felt compelled to call him out on it.
Of course it only took a few comments on his post before he was disavowing his words. So you can thank DTB / Don Viti for being himself.
DTB,
Easier to type that than your whole handle. I see than a pink rifle excited your fancy. You find it an ironic juxtaposing rifle give away and a church. Personally I do not find that ironic at all. Seems right to me.
I skimmed the article and apparently they sponsor shooting competitions. If they are giving away one of the few Hello Kitty modified rifles they are trying to attract girls into the shooting sports. I think that is great that girls are treated the same as boys and some rifles are designed with them in mind. Girls like pink, they get magenta cell phones. They like color. Guys often do not.
Girls that know how to shoot are less likely to be victimized. Then can learn how to shoot handguns and to carry one concealed and if they ever get attacked they may have a chance.
By the way I find your handle very hilarious and ironic Delaware’s Toughest Blogger. How funny when you cannot use logic and reason only ridicule and hyperbole.
Well maybe you are scared of a pink rifle in a girl’s hand.
Hey DTB – Getting back to “guns are designed to kill”
what about the weapon that immediately preceded the gun, the english longbow? Or if we go way, way, back spears (and other types of pointy sticks) All of these weapons are created to incapacitate an attacker, and it just so happens doing so usually means killing that person. Firearms are simply the evolution of human weaponry, but ALL weapons, from pointy stick to firearms were created with the same purpose in mind. To kill. That’s been the point of all weaponry designed since the stone age.
Well, yes. But they weren’t really mass-produced. I suspect that’s why we didn’t have as many drive-by arrowings in the middle ages. (I don’t know if that is a word, but damn it, it should be).
Hello Kitty!
Pointy sticks & spears weren’t “mass produced?”
Oh, and there were plenty of archers in armies.
Some years ago, the GOP Central Committee in Carroll County MD had a raffle that had a Glock pistol as first prize.
A bereaved mother whose kid was killed by a pistol was protesting. She was a ‘new age’ mom with facial piercings and tattoos and I asked her if her lack of parenting skills may have contributed to the tragedy.
Her son was visiting a family with an even younger boy. The younger one suggested that they could break into the home of a police officer and get his gun. Most parents teach their kids not to invade the homes of others. Parental failure #1.
They found the unloaded pistol that was minus the magazine. Further searching found the magazine in another drawer and finally they found the ammunition. Then they loaded the magazine and pulled back the slide, putting a round into the chamber. They then removed and unloaded the magazine. The younger boy then replaced the magazine, pointed it at the Price boy, pulled the trigger, and fired the fatal shot.
I had access to firearms at a very early age and knew how to load and fire one. I was also taught never to treat a gun as a toy, to treat every firearm as if it were loaded, and to never point one at someone or something that I did not intend to shoot.
The parent filed suits that claimed that the design of the pistol was defective since it did not have a loaded chamber indicator. Would either boy have known what information such an indicator conveyed?
The lawsuit went nowhere and an effort to provide firearms safety training in schools was defeated in the General Assembly.
Designed to kill (specifically the AR-15/M-16)
“Defense Secretary Robert McNamara presented wounding ability as a reason for adoption of the M16 over the M14 as a question of battlefield efficiency – that it is better to wound an adversary than kill him, as wounded must be tended to by their comrades, taking them out of the fight and demoralizing them in the process.”
Edward Clinton Ezell “The Great Rifle Controversy: Search for the Ultimate Infantry Weapon from World War II Through Vietnam and Beyond”
My God! I have never seen anyone cling so tenaciously to stupidity as DTB does.
His entire response is truly amazing for its lack of substance. I read all these comments thinking at some point he would say something intelligent.
I was wrong, he never did.
He did say “It’s a big deal because you don’t like the “icky” gun they’re giving away?
it’s a big deal my friend because as someone who has been to church a few times in his life and is pretty sure he knows the message of Jesus and God. I just don’t see how you can dovetail a killing machine into a message of peace and tolerance”
Which is also entirely wrong. He has just shit on the second most precious gift God and Jesus gave him, life. He has decided that this penultimate gift is unworthy of protection or defense. Directly calling God and Jesus liars, because they said innocent life was to be defended. They said it in many places and in many guises, but DTB knows They were wrong.
He is allowed to be a hysterical panty-wetter and an intellectual zero, but he shouldn’t insist that others should be as weak and immoral as is he.
Yeah, Donviti! That’s why Jesus took out two dozen Romans before those son’s of bitches took him alive! It was like an episode of Cops! gone bad. He could swing some battle axes, I tell ya.
LG,
I could see it now in the headlines.
“Downtown Wilmington suffers 9th drive by arrowing”
in the article one witness says. We heard the car drive by, then a bunch of hoodlems stick these cross bow things out the windows and next thing you know it’s arrows flying all over.
veroferitas – My Dad was in the military in the 60’s and he told me that the way that they used to sell the M16 was that it would remove an arm if it struck the arm at any point. I suppose that’s what the goal was, injury.
LG,
I can see those headlines:
Breaking News from the Jersusalem Times!!!
Jesus goes down in blaze of glory. Speaking it tongues it was later deciphered some 2000 years later that he was actually saying, “Man has the right to bear arms and vote…but not drive a car…that, that is a privelege”
Now that’s spin! Oh, and it’s pantie, not panty. Maybe instead of blogging you should get out and meet some girls.
A gun is designed to render your opponent combat ineffective. That can be dead, incapacitated, driven off or pissing his pants in fear.
Dead is not the only option, and when guns are used for defense the third option is by far the most common.
Which is also entirely wrong. He has just shit on the second most precious gift God and Jesus gave him, life. He has decided that this penultimate gift is unworthy of protection or defense. Directly calling God and Jesus liars, because they said innocent life was to be defended. They said it in many places and in many guises, but DTB knows They were wrong.
what if I don’t believe in Dejesus? suppose he really was born to some delusional whore that was raped at 14 and instead of embarrassing her family she made up a story that an angel told her she never had sex?
I personally am more a fan of the Spaghetti Monster. As an Italian, Pasta is near and dear to my heart
if I may intrude… An electric chair was designed to kill, even though it’s the electricity that accomplishes the deed. Ditto for the hangman’s noose and gas chamber.
DBT’s “ancient representation of compressed minerals” was not a killing instrument but through man’s manipulation it developed a sharp edge that was good for scraping meat from animal hides. It was also found efficient at inflicting lethal wounds with a lot less effort. Further evolution brought a plethora of sharp edged instruments. Swords, paring knives, scalpels, and shaving razors for example. while all of these can kill, few were designed with that purpose in mind.
Same with the evolution of firearms. When first used to propel objects at high velocity, killing was not the designed objective it was entertainment. Even when used as a weapon early in its development, killing was a side effect. The noise and smoke it produced was primarily meant to frighten and demoralize the enemy. DBT is correct that some guns are designed with killing as it main purpose. However, they are used to hunt animals, not humans. But they would also extinguish human life. (The British discovered that around 1776) But his blanket assertion all firearms are designed to kill is as false as saying everyone in Delaware is a conservative protestant.
Target pistols, signal guns and stun guns all propel objects at high speed and can kill but that is not their designed funtion. To argue otherwise is to display a bit of ignorance.
Liberalgeek,
I’m an Army officer and have qualified with an M-16A2 and M-4.
The light 5.56 round will not generally blow off limbs. It is effectively a longer .22 bullet with a lot more powder behind it. It causes damage by tumbling, not bullet weight.
Your father was most likely refering to a .50 M2 machinegun round. That might produce the effect he described.
Use a 12 gauge for limb removal.
straightarrow,
He has decided that this penultimate gift is unworthy of protection or defense
are you talking about Jesus or Guns here? Because to me the both of them seem pretty damn important to all you 2a freaks. Seperating the 2 also seems challenging. Based on the church in OK endorsing giving away something mean to kill, harm and scare the piss out of people with…
oh great the grunts are here…we know how they like to stay around until the job is done.
hopefully you don’t stay as long as you guys have in Iraq…
Grunt is an enlisted infantryman.
Is your blog invitation only after liberal creds and latte preference are assessed?
great story art…
now we can end the thread.
Not to me, I’m an agnostic. I only stuck up for the church because you unfairly attacked them based on the assumptions that all guns were killing machines.
sorry my bad…I guess that was an unfair stereotype…I apologize to all the guns out there that don’t kill.
My bet is though that the guns that not made to kill are the red headed step children and get teased by the cooler guns at night when the gun shop owner goes home
Liberal Creds – Voted for Alexander Haig in the ’88 Tennessee Republican primary. Would rather drink battery acid than say “President Obama”.
Latte preference – None. Black coffee only.
Alexander Haig? Say no more.
Interestingly enough…
“My bet is though that the guns that not made to kill are the red headed step children and get teased by the cooler guns at night when the gun shop owner goes home”
The Brady Campaign and VPC anthropomorphise guns and accuse the guns of evil intent and aren’t even trying to be funny. Their giving guns moral choice is strictly from Pants Shitting Hysteria (PSH).
DTB – I”m not particularly religious either, and I’ve said that in several comments. Then again I’m not sure you read or comprehend much of what we’re saying.
I’ll re-post this and see if just maybe DTB can attempt to give us a coherent response.
————————————————————
Hey DTB – Getting back to “guns are designed to kill”
what about the weapon that immediately preceded the gun, the english longbow? Or if we go way, way, back spears (and other types of pointy sticks) All of these weapons are created to incapacitate an attacker, and it just so happens doing so usually means killing that person. Firearms are simply the evolution of human weaponry, but ALL weapons, from pointy stick to firearms were created with the same purpose in mind. To kill. That’s been the point of all weaponry designed since the stone age.
Will you contest this point or will you admit that anything capable of being used as a weapon can kill, therefore all that matters is the INTENT of the user?
Vero – DTB thinks the gun has a mind of it’s own and he elevates it above the simple object that it is. This is why he cannot address the comparisons I’ve made to other weapons.
Hoplophobia – remember, it is an actual mental illness.
Will you contest this point or will you admit that anything capable of being used as a weapon can kill, therefore all that matters is the INTENT of the user?
I don’t even understand why I am supposed to say yes at this point or why it matters. This thread much to your posses credit has steared so wildly left and right that the original intent of this post has been lost on all of you to the point it has become a comedy.
So in closing, this post was meant to illustrate that Guns being given away by Churches is too funny to me. I don’t care if it was for a shooting contest or if was to raise money for sister Sarah. Sorry you feel differently. In the church I used to go to we went to carnivals and shot water guns into clowns mouthes for stupid toys. Not to actually blow shit up at a later date.
Obama talked about clinging to guns and religion and here is a nice little story giftwrapped as an example of it. so I also felt compelled to post it for that reason
I think there should be laws on guns, tougher laws and the fact that a church is promoting any type of gun ownership to teens is remarkable to me. Sorry it just is.
I think that guns are meant to kill a majority of the time (I will concede to the MAJORITY point and not ALL) Call me crazy, but guns aren’t meant for much else (MUCH I SAID MUCH OK so go dig up some stupid reason why a gun isn’t used to kill I DON’T CARE)
I think that I have learned that the 2A people in the blogosphere are wrapped tighter than James Dobson.
I think I have thoroughly enjoyed F’ing with you people. You are a sensitive group. A well organized group and a group that I’d want on my side if I needed some pitbulls to defend something as deadly as a gun.
I think I’m going to bed. And I think I am Still DHB, DTB and the baddest mofo this side of the mississippi.
The Katana, crafted from purest iron, fired in a furnace stoked with virgin woods and quenched in waters or a sacred river was said to contain part of the soul of the warrior and had a life of its own… and so does a Rossi .38 if liberal bed wetters are to be believed.
Jesus H. Christ. Enough with the freaking gun talk.
On a related note, it was really great that Lincoln freed the slaves, but if he was such a great president, he would have found a way to free them AND let the south go. I’m pretty sure you could draw a line across America and erase the bottom half and we’d be none the worse for it.
waters of a sacred river…
BTW, I don’t care if you love guns and you love Jesus; giving away guns at church is just fucked up.
“Obama talked about clinging to guns and religion and here is a nice little story giftwrapped as an example of it. so I also felt compelled to post it for that reason”
And I’ll argue that rather than show how folks “cling to guns & religion” this church gun giveaway exemplifies two of the values that many american’s have. A deep and serious faith in God and a genuine respect and appreciation for their 2nd Amendment rights. Those are both genuine values that people hold and it’s a huge part of the reason people were offended by Obama’s statements. He attacked their values and dismissed them out of hand as negatives brought on by economically induced bitterness. All that did was show American’s how elitist he is and how out of touch his values are with those of many Americans.
You may believe that guns are meant to kill a majority of the time. The reality of course is that the majority of the time guns are not USED to kill. 99.99% of gun owners didn’t shoot anyone yesterday, and 99.9% never will.
Didn’t this entry have something to do with guns?
Or are you more interested in insulting the south eastern US instead?
“I’m pretty sure you could draw a line across America and erase the bottom half and we’d be none the worse for it.”
That’s a pretty bigoted statement. Calm down woman.
Vero – Ironically they’re complaining about the gun talk…….but who started this topic on the AR-15?
Not the south eastern US – the ENTIRE SOUTHERN HALF. That’s where you’ll probably find the biggest gun and Jesus lovers. More power to ’em, but I wouldn’t miss them. No offense, gun lovahs.
Yup – Make an offensive, bigoted remark about half the country and it’s perfectly acceptable because you said “no offense.”
You say things like this and somehow we’re the crazy ones…….unbelievable.
BTW -there’s plenty of “gun lovahs” in DE and PA – remember, I’m from this state too.
Unfortunately, the thread did not uniformly confirm “guns are icky and scary”. Damn all of those grassroots gun nuts and their free exchange of ideas and free discussion. Damn them to hell.
If not caring if I never hear from or see another gun lover or bible thumper for the rest of my life makes me a bigot, then so be it. I can live with that.
No, just damn them to the south where they can live among their kinfolk.
Guns are gay.
I’m no bible thumper.
I’m stuck in this toilet shaped like a state, New Jersey. I would love to have all of the yankees get the hell out of the south and I would gladly go back to Fort Bragg.
Your barbecue sucks and women from the south have prettier and more comprehensible accents.
Jersey City, the land evolution forgot. Visit there and realize where all of the neanderthals went.
Our women have much less body hair.
Dude, you’re not originally from the south. Your grammar and spelling are too good. Where did you grow up?
I think you have Jersey City confused with Appalachia.
Though Jersey City is, indeed, a shithole.
I grew up in Memphis. I know barbecue and pretty southern women.
Miss New Jersey wouldn’t pass for an exhibit in the great apes section of the Memphis Zoo.
Your southerner stereotype is flawed. Rural Pennsylvania is rural Mississippi with a different accent. Stupidity and bigotry has distinctive regional flavor but is pretty much the same.
People from Baghdad to Newark are pretty much the same; insane and hard to deal with.
You’re right. Pennsyltucky can go, too.
We’ll take it. We’ll give Florida in trade.
DTB if you’re pastafarian, own it, but you don’t know shooters if you think there aren’t any who follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Umm…Florida is full of freaks. We have no interest in it. We’ll take the Outer Banks and Hilton Head Island for Central PA and Eastern Ohio.
“Assault
2a a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact”
Great job genius. Let me know when a gun just jumps out of someones house and attacks you all by it’s lonesome. Assault is an ACTION – An object, I.E. GUN CANNOT ACT, it can only be acted upon.
“If not caring if I never hear from or see another gun lover or bible thumper for the rest of my life makes me a bigot, then so be it. I can live with that.”
You see us all the time, you just don’t know we’re carrying guns.
BTW, you’re right about the barbecue, but you can’t get a decent cheesesteak or sub to save your life in the south.
vero – It’s late. I’m going to bed. You did Memphis proud tonight with your sense of humor. Nice name, btw. 🙂
Good night to you, Dominique.
Hopefully there are some transplanted southern women in Delaware.
I’m from Pennsylvania… decidedly north of the Mason-Dixon line.
And by the way, you would be surprised how many “gun nuts” enjoy spirited banter and have a sense of humor.
Try thirdpower’s blog, or sebastian, or any of a half dozen witty and sharp pro-gun bloggers. Or if you are ready to see humanity at its silliest, I suggest Bryan Miller of Ceasefire NJ (http://blog.nj.com/njv_bryan_miller/2008/06/supreme_court_2nd_amendment_ru.html).
In any trades, the south gets visitation rights to Rehoboth Beach if you want access to the outer banks.
Sebastian,
I love central PA. It could easily be south of the Mason Dixon line except for the accents and lack of rusted refrigerators in the front yards.
As per a Church giving out a gun being un-Christian – who knows more about Christianity – people have haven’t seen the inside of a Church in what I am guessing is a few decades or people who study the Bible professionally?
My old priest owned 8 (count ’em 8) guns. He liked target shooting and he liked guns, from time to time I would go shooting with him. He is one of the holiest men I know, owning a firearm in no way made him less of a Christian or less of a Priest.
“what exactly does the AR-15, a selective-fire prototype submitted for consideration as a military infantry rifle later adopted as the M16
promote then?”
again folks, these are sporting arms, rifles are almost never used if crime. like mike said, I’d be surprised if 1 person had been killed in the last year with an AR. this is not a military weapon. I admit, these guns look scary but don’t judge a book by its cover.
As per a mosque in Iraq, I don’t know what gun laws in Iraq are. If a mosque in America did it I would look at it the same way I look at the Church that is doing it now.
BTD – I own a little .22. a .22 couldn’t stop Steve Urkel on a bad day let alone a determined opponent. Was my .22 made to kill?
Let the more children go. They act like children, argue like children, have ignorance like children, ridicule, use vulgarity like children and are intolerant like children.
Toughest blogger Hah! More like idiotic blogger.
“(MUCH I SAID MUCH OK so go dig up some stupid reason why a gun isn’t used to kill I DON’T CARE)”
Which is the same as saying “Go ahead and prove that 2+2 doesn’t equal 17 I DON’T CARE!!!!”
Face it DTB, you just got your ass handed to you. The intent of the designer of an object in no way confers its intent to the holder. A toothbrush can be filed down to a shank, a rifle can be used for sporting purposes. And, even though you don’t care, I can PROVE to your readers that the VAST MAJORITY of guns do not kill – Here’s data directly from the CDC. Only .0007% of guns are used for killing in the US and that number INCLUDES suicides.
This has been fun, but the comments over at my place have been a lot more educational and well argued. You guys might want to check it out to see how to properly argue a point.
yawn
^ Yup, as I expected Robb. Willful ignorance.
Got nothing huh DTB?
You can lead a man to the water …
To return to the original point, consider how many youths may had been attracted to this raffle or giveaway … a lot of potential oppertunities to cultivate some religion and peace within those “kids”.
(not that I’m a huge fan of organized religion)
OK, I’ll chuck in a couple pennies.
“beats the shit out of me, I just know that guns were orignally made to kill…”
Swimming pools were originally made as recreational devices. You wanna guess which device (guns or swimming pools) have been involved in the deaths of more children in this country?
I’d say, overall, guns have a pretty decent record of NOT killing people, all things considered. If guns were the inherently dangerous killing machines you’re trying to make them out to be, this country would have depopulated itself by now, given the fact that there are hundreds of millions of privately-owned firearms in the country.
And, you talk about our unwillingness to compromise on the gun control issue? Are you insane? Gun rights groups have been compromising away our rights for some time now. Every time a new gun control law goes into effect, that then becomes the starting negotiating position for the pro-gun rights crowd when the next round of “compromise” gets under way.
On one end, there’s “NO GUN LAWS AT ALL!”
On the other, “NO GUNS AT ALL!”
To look at the current gun laws on the books today and insinuate that the gun rights side hasn’t “compromised” enough is ludicrous. As the earlier commenter stated, which 10,000 gun laws are you ready to do away with so we can meet in the middle here?
OK, I’m done here. I could comment here until the cows come home, but others have done a fine job at it already. Thanks for starting the thread, DTB. Now, whenever anyone stumbles across it, at least they’ll be treated to some rational discourse in the comment section here.
Thankfully we have folks like DTB, Pandora and Dominique to show people what kind of arguments the anti-rights side has.
And they’re fine, upstanding, courteous folks too……
“So in closing, this post was meant to illustrate that Guns being given away by Churches is too funny to me. I don’t care if it was for a shooting contest or if was to raise money for sister Sarah. Sorry you feel differently. In the church I used to go to we went to carnivals and shot water guns into clowns mouthes for stupid toys. Not to actually blow shit up at a later date.” DTB
I’m not surprized that a left winger would find funny, a correlation between guns and church.
I wonder if that Colorado church holds the same hoplophobic sentiments after the Jeanne Assam incident?
Liberals: proving day after day that emotionalism is all they have.
Err, hate to poop on your party, but I’m as liberal as they come, and I have much more to offer than emotions in favor of gun rights.
Sorry for the generalization, MH. I know it’s not ALL liberals. Just the “toughest” ones. 😉
you say anti-rights
I say pro-law is all.
I’d say, overall, guns have a pretty decent record of NOT killing people, all things considered.
sounds like that gun company would go out of business real fast if word got out on that nugget
Gun rights groups have been compromising away our rights for some time now. Every time a new gun control law goes into effect, that then becomes the starting negotiating position for the pro-gun rights crowd when the next round of “compromise” gets under way.
you act like you don’t own guns or something. You act as if you are little children leaning your forehead against the window of a pet shop and you don’t see a cute little puppy. You see a gun and the awful government won’t let you take it home.
BUT you have guns don’t you? So how have the laws really impacted you at the end of the day? I don’t understand that one.
So basically your idea of compromise is us not being able to have guns? I understand now.
“So how have the laws really impacted you at the end of the day? I don’t understand that one.”
Add another item to the list of things you don’t understand.
The laws regarding firearms are such that practically anyone can become a criminal without knowing it. Certain places ban guns based on cosmetics. One of our friends who is in a wheelchair requires the use of a specialized grip in order to be able to control a firearm – and the addition of said grip to a firearm makes him a felon.
I’d like to be able to suppress my firearms to maintain my hearing better, something that is *required* in other countries like England. But just OWNING a set of washers, a tin can, some and grease literally can land me in jail just for having the parts to make one.
You, not being knowledgeable of firearms, have no idea what we have to go through in order to obtain our guns. We are presumed guilty before being proven innocent, something that any liberal worth their salt would fight against (but you’re not a liberal, you’re an authoritarian). And then we’re labeled as bible-thumping rednecks by bigots such as you.
The good thing is that we on the pro-rights side are winning. 48 states now have some form of concealed carry. Barack There’s No Place Like Home Obama even has to pretend he supports the Second Amendment because otherwise, it’s political suicide. The Brady Campaign, the VPC, and various anti-gun groups are hard up for cash and have lost all relevancy.
The reason this is happening is because us gun owners are right.
I wish I had you guys fighting for my right to marijuana
sebas,
So basically your idea of compromise is us not being able to have guns?
is that directed at me? I don’t rememer saying that. I’m just pro-gun laws that is all.
“I wish I had you guys fighting for my right to marijuana”
Don’t pigeon hole us. Do you know how many pro-gun people are libertarian. I’m pro-legalization and think the “war on drugs” is just as much of a farce as the “war on guns”
200!
I do support the decriminalisation of cannabis, but I need not fight for it. 🙂
“So how have the laws really impacted you at the end of the day?”
Might as well flip that one around… you say you are in favor of gun laws, well here is a question for you: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
what is with you guys answering a question with more questions? christ!
I can’t (for instance) carry my gun anywhere in Illinois. That’s how gun laws have affected me. And I’m against the war on (some) drugs. I frequently question why a constitutional amendment was required to outlaw alcohol, but not marijuana.
“what is with you guys answering a question with more questions? christ!”
Maybe to see if you’ll finally answer something without obfuscating the issue?
Greg’s question is simple. Try answering it.
BUT you have guns don’t you? So how have the laws really impacted you at the end of the day? I don’t understand that one.
Maybe it’s that we don’t like having to ask permission to exercise a Constitutional Right.
How would you feel if before you could cast a vote in an election you had to:
1. Pay a federal tax to vote.
2. Fill out a form.
3. Get fingerprinted.
How about doing the above things every time you wished to express your freedom of speech on you blog?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that you can’t tax someone for exercising their Constitutional Rights(Poll Tax), yet this has been ignored far as long as the “collective” rights arguement has prevailed.
Now that has changed.
No wonder why this site is a joke with debate skills like this…
jason330 // Jul 15, 2008 at 12:02 pm
murderboy,
You are a regular jukebox of NRA talking points aren’t you? Momma must be proud.
Impress me and be against the “right” of the woman in your example to buy 20 guns a month at gun shows…..
Okay then.
SHUT UP!
Case closed. You are a nutbag.
How about doing the above things every time you wished to express your freedom of speech on you blog?
my blog isn’t a projectile launcher that can blow a hole in your head the size of a soccer ball
mike,
i’m done talking to you spoonboy
Actually, about twice a month a read one of your postings and my head does explode. Bad example.
where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
don’t those monks in china do pretty good without guns? I’m thinking of martial arts and stuff. That stuff works pretty well. They don’t need guns to defend themselves.
My father in law is a 3rd degree black belt and I can tell you I’d rather him have a gun on him then know he can rip my arm off and shove it up my ass in 3 movements.
Hitler and Lenin were masterful orators who used their freedom to speak to bring about systems that resulted in the murder of MILLIONS.
The free dissemination of ideas through speech has been responsible for more death than anything else I can think of.
“don’t those monks in china do pretty good without guns?”
Yeah, those monks in Burma were just fine without guns. The Jews in Germany under Hitler were just fine after they were disarmed. Why didn’t they just fight back against the SS with their superior martial arts skills?
“don’t those monks in china do pretty good without guns? I’m thinking of martial arts and stuff. That stuff works pretty well. They don’t need guns to defend themselves.”
Equality of the sexes and ages doesn’t factor into that. If you notice there are age, weight, and sex classes in martial arts competition.
Firearms take less training to effectivly use, require minimal physical strenth to impliment, are safer to use (I know lots of martial artists will pulled muscles, tendons, sprains, breaks, and other such injuries….while on the shooting line the worst injury you’ll ever usally see is M1-thumb)
So yeah, a healthy adult male in his prime years with YEARS of martial arts training might be able to defend themselves from most attacks with sucess rates of somebody who uses a defensive firearm with same age, body-type and lenth of training.
But then compare the difference in sucessful defence of that firearms expert, with an elderly 100lb woman who just ventures to the range every other month (Which is still more trigger time than the average cop) the difference is negligible.
Take away the guns, and the strong will have all the power over the weak. That’s not the world I wish to live in.
mikey,
resulted key word.
I broke my promise, dang!
“Take away the guns, and the strong will have all the power over the weak. That’s not the world I wish to live in.”
That actually reminds me alot of the Feudal System. Even moreso if you consider the role of women in that society. They basically had to be sex slaves for some old fat guy in exchange for protection. The old & infirm didn’t fair much better. And if you were poor and unarmed, those armed old fat guys just took your wife or daughter at will and stole any property they wanted.
Gee, sounds great doesn’t it?
So yeah, a healthy adult male in his prime years with YEARS of martial arts training might be able to defend themselves from most attacks with sucess rates of somebody who uses a defensive firearm with same age, body-type and lenth of training.
But then compare the difference in sucessful defence of that firearms expert, with an elderly 100lb woman who just ventures to the range every other month (Which is still more trigger time than the average cop) the difference is negligible.
proof please
“Take away the guns, and the strong will have all the power over the weak. That’s not the world I wish to live in.”
did you write that with a straight face? Or did you bust up laughing after you re-read it aloud?
“proof please”
If I provide it, will you read it and then either admit you are wrong or show the logical errors of the proof?
Or will you simply revert to the name calling that you’ve substituted for discourse?
“mikey,
resulted key word.
I broke my promise, dang!”
Yup, the speeches expounding the ideas of those men were ultimately responsible for the deaths of millions. Communism & Facism were merely ideas, yet millions died as a result of the practical implementation of those ideas. So aren’t ideas inherently dangerous?
your historical phrase for the day: “boxer rebellion”. google it.
“proof please”
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
A good collection of self defence news stories. I don’t suspect you’ll read them… but it only took me 10 seconds of Google-fu to prove my point.
You show me a collection of Martial arts defence stories and you’ll note that the vast majority of those stories will be people in their prime with high-level martial arts training.
Meanwhile the provided link shows Cops, Firearms instructors and other masters of the trade just as often as Suzie Homemaker, or Bub the retired Auto Worker.
Godwin’s Law has been broached!
Here’s how a true 2nd Amendment scholar, such as me ;-), should look at the issue of restriction:
The right is to “Bear Arms”, simple enough, correct?
Bear Arms:
a. to carry weapons.
b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces.
There is no mention of a particular type of ‘Arms’; it’s just understood as Weaponry.
So all you anti-restriction advocates out there, do you realize what you are truly supporting, implicitly, is unfettered access to every single device of weaponry out there. That, and along with saying the laws put in place to restrict access to certain chemicals and plastics are unconstitutional as well.
If you state: “Well, all they had back then were cannons and muskets.” Then you have to limit the scope of today’s rights as “Cannons and Muskets”. Otherwise, you unconditionally favor weaponry restriction and the question then turns to how much and what kind of restriction should there be.
Weer’d – I’ve posted that very Self-Defense link probably 4 times in different threads and it’s been ignored.
Actually, arms used as opposed to ordenance (contemporary term and meaning) means to say the weaponry carried by an ordinary infantryman.
So in giving up grenades, field mortars and machine guns, current laws actually fall short of that … but our side doesn’t mind, WE don’t mind compromising.
“Weer’d – I’ve posted that very Self-Defense link probably 4 times in different threads and it’s been ignored.”
I’d laugh if THAT wasn’t true :p
Understood MH, but the rationale for unfettered gun ownership is based on the simplicity of the 2A verbiage, right?
And I’m not even close to being anti-gun, but most can recognize the loophole of logic of the 2A dead-enders.
pwned!
“So all you anti-restriction advocates out there, do you realize what you are truly supporting, implicitly, is unfettered access to every single device of weaponry out there.” Von Cracker.
There it is…the Nukes and Bazookas(tm) argument from another self-proclaimed “scholar” who hasn’t bothered to read the Heller decision. You missed some good information in Heller. You can even access it by googling if you’re having a hard time finding it.
“The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home ‘the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,’ would fail constitutional muster.” (56-57)
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/
I don’t believe I’ve heard any pro-rights advocate argue for unfettered access to nukes and chemical weapons. But handguns and semi-auto rifles (even that big bad icky AR-15) all fit into the “overwhelmingly chosen” category.
Try again. This time without the strawman.
sorry,
when can we expect the spoon defense again?
or the cop’s have guns too nod?
or I know, Pools are more deadly one?
Wait, how about there are tons of guns that don’t kill?
yawn
A little premature on the “pwned” huh DTB?
Try again. This time without the strawman. now that was funny.
there is nothing premature about me. Ask the ladies
Going to ignore the text of the Heller decision too right DTB?
Oh man that above post is just ripe for an insult…. but I’ll pass and take the high road. Don’t want to bring myself down to your level.
I’m not considering Heller, and yes, I’ve read it.
What’s flying over your almighty head is the reliance on the simplicity of the 2A wording as a defense for unfettered gun ownership. When relying on purely the text of the 2A, you inherently forego any amendment or law that came after Ratification; otherwise, you implicitly accept restrictions made to the 2A. Subsequently, you cannot argue any further restrictions (up to banishment) as being unconstitutional. You digg?
So, let’s reiterate.
If you think that all guns should be banned, you’re advocating an unconstitutional law.
If you believe that we should have no gun restrictions because the 2A says so, then you believe that all weapons (everything!!!, since you’re relying on the base law and disregarding the later restrictions levied by statute, etc) should be available within one’s personal arsenal.
If you think that other Arms (not even”Nukes and Bazookas” for that’s a little silly, well Nukes maybe) should be regulated and accept these regulations as the rule of law, then you accept restrictions to the 2A and are in no standing when you state that Gun Ownership is unqualifiedly protected.
Put it this way “All Guns are Arms”
So is “All Arms are Guns”?
If you answer ‘No’ to the last one, then you support restriction.
sort of how, due to the absolutist nature of the freedom of speech and of the press, there can be no constitutional laws prohibiting libel, slander, inciting riots, …
yeah, those first amendment dead-enders are such a ridiculous bunch. or would be, if i could only find them.
of course different classes of weaponry can be banned, as can certain classes of people be banned from owning weaponry at all. have some faith in the ability of the Supreme Court to twist words and logic into the politically desirable outcome. remember, that’s the body that ruled marijuana grown in the same state in which it was freely given away for consumption could be regulated as having affected interstate commerce. you don’t think cannon and machineguns can be hair-split right out of the second amendment’s plain language? pfft, i say.
“Going to ignore the text of the Heller decision too right DTB?”
He’ll ignore any facts put up to support our argument. Like he totally ignored the list of defensive gun uses, dispite actully ASKING for it.
We’ve won this battle…if DTB wants to keep “Fighting” then all the better for our cause.
um, captain unobvious
Not Anti-gun
Pro-gun laws
you guys want it both ways and you can’t have it
Not Racist
Pro-Segregation Laws.
I mean, they’re laws so they’re good, right?
I bet you don’t even know what the gun laws are that you so fervently hold to.
“there is nothing premature about me. Ask the ladies”
I thought overcompensation was the ad hominem people like yourself used AGAINST the pro-rights side?
Poor self-esteem?
Von Cracker-
Of course I support some reasonable restrictions. My point being, not everyone who is pro-gun is an absolutist who cannot see some benefit to reasonable, common sense restrictions.
But common sense and reasonable restrictions in places like DC where idiots like Josh Sugarmann, Fenty, Lanier, etc… are trying to classify handguns as machine guns in order to keep them banned, or in NJ where they classify the Marlin 60 .22 cal rifle and muzzle loaders as assault weapons that is a little ridiculous, and only adds to the unwillingness to compromise.
I thought overcompensation was the ad hominem people like yourself used AGAINST the pro-rights side?
I think I have seen the word ad-hominem more times in the last 2 days from you 2A’ers then I have since I have been with this blog.
Poor self-esteem?
I don’t need guns to make me feel like a man if that’s what you are asking
I bet you don’t even know what the gun laws are that you so fervently hold to.
wait, you mean there are laws now? Don’t work to well then.
I am pro “new” laws that work. How’s that?
Pro-Segregation Laws.
wow is being pro-gun law equal to that?
Are you going to compare a spoon to a gun next? If so, you have jumped the shark
ML – I agree – I was just pointing out the logical hypocrisy of SOME pro-gun absolutist. Conversely, I see the same thing on the anti-gun side.
Personally, I see the 2A as a high-level right, like most of the Amendments, which needs and requires qualification and clarification in order for our country to progress through an ever-changing society and world.
I see the need to stop citizens from shooting-off bazookas or Tommy Guns on the 4th as the same as stopping our government from using the newest technologies to compile possibly incriminating evidence against its citizens without due process.
DTB
“I don’t need guns to make me feel like a man if that’s what you are asking”
That because you are not a man just a child from your posting comments. A gun can not make you feel something you are not.
“I think I have seen the word ad-hominem more times in the last 2 days from you 2A’ers then I have since I have been with this blog.”
That’s because you’re not preaching to your usual choir of sheeple. When ad hominem, red herrings, and strawmen are all you have to push an anti gun…er…pro-gun law (if that makes you sleep better at night) agenda, you’re gonna be called out on it.
I admire your tenacity however. Usually these blogs fold up in the name of “technical revamping”, a la, Paul Helmke, when their inability to substantiate their emotionalism is exposed.
That’s because you’re not preaching to your usual choir of sheeple. When ad hominem, red herrings, and strawmen are all you have to push …
That is rich. The whole gun nut argument boils down to one logical fallicy. The slippery slope.
“I don’t need guns to make me feel like a man if that’s what you are asking.”
Nope, that’s not what I was asking. I was raising possible self-esteem issues, based on your 8th grade comment on your self-perceived “prowess” with the “ladies.”
It explains your angle anyway.
“That is rich. The whole gun nut argument boils down to one logical fallicy. The slippery slope.”
Wow. Attempting to counter the strawman argument with….another strawman! Outstanding! This is too much!
Did I say anything about the slippery slope argument? I believe I was referring to DTB’s inability to logically debate without using one of the aforementioned.
And I was mentioned every comment made by the gun nuts here over the past week or so.
It is slippery slope city.
Google the term if you are unfamiliar with it.
“wait, you mean there are laws now? Don’t work to well then.
I am pro “new” laws that work. How’s that?”
Right. Criminals break the old gun laws, as well as those prohibiting rape, assault, murder, robbery etc. So if we pass “just one more law” they’ll just stop their criminal ways and say “my bad, I guess I can’t do that?”
If you really think that you are hopelessly naive.
DTB: You are continuing to state your opinion (what you believe is fact) without one shred of evidence, against every possible argument to the contrary, and expecting some different result.
I have ONE question, not only for DTB, but I’m wondering if ANYONE can answer this:
Name ONE Item designed for a purpose, that when used, does not perform that purpose 99% of the time?
You can even pick something that can be designed for MULTIPLE purposes. Can you name ANYTHING that does not perform one of it’s main designed purposes most of the time?
Here’s why I ask: If guns are designed primarily to kill, why is it they fail to perform that task over 99% of the time they’re used?
I’m a pro-gun advocate, and I’ll state that I believe guns in general are designed to be a deadly weapon. But 99% of the time, it is the THREAT of deadly force that the gun is used for, not killing.
Therefore, a gun’s primary purpose, is simply this: To BE a weapon, and all that that implies. Just the fact that is is a weapon, and the THREAT that it MAY be used to harm is it’s primary purpose.
The closest relavent thing I can compare this to (besides spoons) is a nuclear weapon stockpile. What is the purpose of a nuclear ICBM? To kill lots of the enemy? The US didn’t build our nukes to USE them to kill, we built them as a DETERRANT THREAT. That’s what they were ALL used for (except a little target practice).
…Orygunner…
orygunner,
So if guns only work 1% of the time? why do you want them so fucking badly?
Right. Criminals break the old gun laws, as well as those prohibiting rape, assault, murder, robbery etc. So if we pass “just one more law” they’ll just stop their criminal ways and say “my bad, I guess I can’t do that?”
so basically, the current laws are FINE and we just need to ENFORCE them better.
No, in other words we need to get rid of 99% of the gun laws and ENFORCE the laws against murder, assault, robbery and other violent crimes. Why would you want more gun laws when the ones we have don’t work?
DTB – he’s disproving your point that “guns are intended to kill” by saying that 99% of the time they don’t kill, therefore your premise on the “intent” of the gun is dead wrong.
“Name ONE Item designed for a purpose, that when used, does not perform that purpose 99% of the time?”
Massagers :p
My guns have actually succeeded in their intended purpose 100% of the time… its just that they aren’t intended to be used for killing, rather for protecting.
You are right that existing laws need to be better enforced, but I some gun laws are useless in stopping crime and ought to be repealed. The thing is, I guarantee you, like most people who spout off against guns, don’t know what the laws actually are. If I’m wrong about that, please please please tell me so.
You are right that existing laws need to be better enforced,
Woooohooooooooooooooooo
DTB – 20 minutes in the naughty chair if you EVER post gun shit again. I’m serious. It’s too much trouble to scroll past the nonsense to get to the funny comments.
Dominique – Honestly some of the funniest comments were one’s where you made our points for us without even realizing it.
DISCLAIMER: My spelling errors have stunk up the room less than DTB’s shill diatribe.
DTB: there is nothing premature about me. Ask the ladies
I did. The ladies said you are tough, except for your arguments and your manhood.
Liberals are so lazy. It’s way too much easier to attempt to wear down opposing thought with the kind of talk one only spews behind the anomynity of the internet. Even lazier are the liberals who pay people like DTB to be their yes men. DTB probably waits to be told what dress to put on by his handlers. Its more obvious who’s pulling his strings than who sponsors the average NASCAR driver.
So you want pot, DTB? I agree drugs should not be illegal, but if its more important to you, then use your mind, produce a good argument or two, and get organized. Just remember, you want people wanting to work alongside you, putting their hard earned dollar into your cause, not putting your money into getting people to say yes, agreeing with you for a living.
DTB, you’re not tough, you’re mean. That’s not a bad thing, I’m being mean to you (I’m sure you’ll call it whatever you girls are calling it nowadays). Granted, we appear to come back saying “Thank you, sir, may I please have another?” Maybe if your shtick wasn’t so pathetic it was funny. Maybe even I will come around to tormenting you endlessly. One thing is certain: the only people I don’t trust with a gun are people like you. But thats my opinion, and my business. You still have the right, which predates your live and everything you know, and you will have it whether how you believe on the issue.
Guns are designed to cause injury… kill even, depending on the circumstances. Too bad for your argument that the vast majority of the 250+ million guns in this country kill as much as I think your jokes do… nada!
took you like an hour to write that didn’t it. Did you think you were being all gunblogger tough? did you say grrrrr take that progressive blogger guy….grrrrr
I can see it now I guess the progressive bloggers in the blogging world are like nerds and the gun bloggers are the tough biker guys that poke you with there tattoo’d (sp) finger that has the letter F on it.
your tough Mike. Now go tell mom to tuck you in kiddo, time for the grown ups to talk
The above post certainly wasn’t me.
Anyway, I’m just glad to have a part in exposing the bigotry, anger, and lack of evidence you anti’s have shown. Debating against fear and emotion is predictable, but it’s still fun to watch the events unfold.
I sincerely hope you’re never in situation where you need a gun DTB, and if you are I hope a law-abiding CCW holder or a cop is around to come to your aide.
By the way, quit talking down to me like I’m some little kid. I’m only 22, but I’ve been through alot of shit that your average person will never have to go through, and yet I consider myself lucky.
i won’t put myself in one…
oh and all kids say that. It’s cute when you think you are all unique and stuff and you have seen a lot more than most. I did too…you’ll come around eventually.
As if we walk around looking for situations where we need to use our guns……..
If you KNEW when violent crime would happen to you you’d simply avoid those situations. Unfortunately reality is not that simple.
Oh, and I wasn’t talking about some emotional BS I went through. I was talking about dealing with life from the perspective of someone with a physical disability.
DTB Said: So if guns only work 1% of the time? why do you want them so fucking badly?
Well over 99% of the time if someone uses a gun for target shooting, nobody gets killed. It works for punching holes in paper.
Over 99% of the time a gun is used in the US in self-defense, just the THREAT of having a firearm and the deadly force it’s capable of is enough to prevent the violent crime, WITHOUT killing anyone .(1) It works for defending life & property.
Now on the flip side, when hunting with a gun, if the hunt is successful, the gun was successfully used to kill something.
If someone successfuly uses a gun for committing suicide, using a gun works to kill themselves.
So if a gun is USED for the purpose of killing, it probably will help accomplish that purpose pretty well. But since there are only around 30,000 firearm deaths in the US (and over half of them are suicides), It’s obvious that the majority of times a gun is used in the US, NOBODY is killed.
Hammers are designed to drive nails or move heavy things by use of force. Baseball bats are designed to be swung to hit a ball. a 2×4 is designed to be used in construction or as a sturdy support. A gun is a machine designed to fire a bullet. A compound bow is designed to fire an arrow. A kitchen knife is designed to slice or chop for food preperation. EVERY ONE of these things can be used to kill, some more easily than others, depending on circumstances. The DESIGN of something may lend itself well to a certain purpose, but the end purpose comes from the mind and hands of the user, not the object or tool.
So, I see a church giving away an AR-15 as no worse than giving away a knife set, baseball bat, bow, 2×4… Their designed uses do not conflict with Christianity in any way that I have seen. The purpose someone may put them to may be another matter entirely.
…Orygunner…
(1) Multiple legitimate studies show DGU (Defensive Gun Uses) in the US number at least 1 to 2.5 million every year. Even the study the Brady Campaign uses reports 700,000. Recent DOJ Statistics report less than 100 justifiable homicides by citizens per year.
DTB, Just because it may have been lost way back in the thread, can you re-clarify your assertion? was it “Guns are designed only to kill”?
Thanks,
…Orygunner…
I stopped reading comments around #62 (right around the childish ‘your mom’ joke). I think it’s pretty clear who the winners are. Hint: its not the guy whose sole argument is virulent ad hominem attacks.
I got tired of all the back and forth. The issue with Sen Obama making the “clinging to guns and religion” comment is that those are the very things we should be clinging to. His ideas about change sound very socialist, and I am not interested.
As far as a church giving away a firearm, so what? If you don’t want to participate don’t buy a ticket.
The color you paint your guns is all part of the freedom of choice we enjoy as consumers. Sort of like painting a car. Might be simple, might be fancy, might be black, might be pink. Repainting a car won’t make it go faster and repainting a gun won’t make it more accurate.
The article was written to make the cause of the injury ambiguous. Not a lie, exactly, but shady. So the author could say, “I never said his injury was caused by a firearm.”
Guns are designed to shoot accurately and hit effectively. That’s why the police carry them. They are tools. The ownership and carrying of those tools is protected by the Constitution.
Accept responsibility for your own protection. I assure you, if you need help, you need it immediately, calling 911 means someone will be along in while to make a report.
oh noes an evil black rifle……
it dosent matter what kind of weapon it is a gun is made to kill a .22Long will kill you shouldnt that be bad too? hell a sling shot with a ball bearing could kill you…. quit being a bunch of anti gun pussys and let us have our 2nd amendment right
btw guns are not bad the thugs and wanna be gang bangers are the problem so when our country gets attacked i am not going to waist my ammo on you anti gun pussys
And don’t waste any time on punctuation, spelling or capitalization.
Hey look, an armed CCW holder saves the day yet again. No “blood in the streets”
http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_072208WAB_restaurant_robbery_KC.810a4e71.html
Why is it that the catastrophe’s you anti’s claim will happen if American’s can easily carry weapons don’t actually happen.
Could it be that CCW holders are *gasp* an extremely non-violent, law-abiding segment of American society?
Just thought I’d point out to the “assault weapons are bad” crowd that a non-lethal version of the AR-15 is being used by security at the DNC right now.
It pretty much looks just like an “evil assault weapon”……but it’s not.
http://www.gunpundit.com/763.php
http://www.gunpundit.com/648.php
http://www.veritastactical.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=53
you really are an idiot
nice substantive response DBB – Right on par with the rest of your comments in this thread. I don’t think I saw one intelligent response you made in this entire thread.
Liberal Geek, what you dont realize about Mosques in Iraq is that they ARE handing out weapons. More than a few Mosques are used to harbor insurgents, terrorists, and store their weapons.
So technically, no a mosque in downtown Baghdad is not handing out AR-15s after friday prayer, however they are storing AK-47s, 80mm mortars, RPG-7s, IEDs, Chemical bombs, and other weapons systems used against us.
Kilroy was here
That’s a cute gun
You guys missed the point. The right to bear arms doesn’t have anything to do with guns. It says you can hang up your bear arms in your living room without fear of retaliation.
Life is amazing. Everyday I grow older, I see beauty in this world where I did not expect it. With only a flick of a finger, no man can create life but any man can take it away.
I’ve seen grown men turn into infants over guns. And I think everyone can agree that immaturity and guns don’t mix.
oh boy…this horse just wont die