Miller Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 I feel like I say this ad nauseum. A shovel is a tool for shoveling. Its specific purpose is to move dirt. It just happens to be good at killing things when used for that purpose. A gun is a tool for killing. It is not good for tilling earth. It is not good for constructing buildings. It is not good for ensuring proper bolt tightness. It is not good for most tasks other than killing. I can't help but categorize this in the same realm as reducto at hitlerum. It's freaking silly. Quit Hitlerin up this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Quit Hitlerin up this thread. It's not a REAL thread on the internet until someone brings up Hitler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Brian Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 The media reminds me of over-dramatic attention whores who's daddy's never loved them. You remind me of someone who uses too many apostrophes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinisterSS Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 I feel like I say this ad nauseum. A shovel is a tool for shoveling. Its specific purpose is to move dirt. It just happens to be good at killing things when used for that purpose. A gun is a tool for killing. It is not good for tilling earth. It is not good for constructing buildings. It is not good for ensuring proper bolt tightness. It is not good for most tasks other than killing. I can't help but categorize this in the same realm as reducto at hitlerum. It's freaking silly. a HAMMER is a tool but when used to kill, said hammer is a weapon. that better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Yes, If you like, I can stop by and pick them up and take them to the confiscation center for you when I turn mine in... Just PM me your address. Sure man 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 a HAMMER is a tool but when used to kill, said hammer is a weapon. that better? You're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying that calling a gun a tool is inaccurate, I'm saying the argument that all tools should be treated equally is silly. Dynamite is also a tool. It's very good at helping us access minerals in the earth and is way more efficient than a pickaxe. Does that mean every American should be able to stock their toolshed full of it? The "NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN HAMMERS" argument is just as silly as the "EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE DYNAMITE" argument IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 You're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying that calling a gun a tool is inaccurate, I'm saying the argument that all tools should be treated equally is silly. Dynamite is also a tool. It's very good at helping us access minerals in the earth and is way more efficient than a pickaxe. Does that mean every American should be able to stock their toolshed full of it? The "NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN HAMMERS" argument is just as silly as the "EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE DYNAMITE" argument IMO. May be we should start calling guns as hole punchers? Guns make excellent holes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 May be we should start calling guns as hole punchers? Guns make excellent holes. :lolguy: who needs a 3 hole punch, mine'll do 33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewhop Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 I feel like I say this ad nauseum. A shovel is a tool for shoveling. Its specific purpose is to move dirt. It just happens to be good at killing things when used for that purpose. A gun is a tool for killing. It is not good for tilling earth. It is not good for constructing buildings. It is not good for ensuring proper bolt tightness. It is not good for most tasks other than killing. I can't help but categorize this in the same realm as reducto at hitlerum. It's freaking silly. A gun is a tool. It is the greatest tool ever created for stopping a government from tyrannically controlling the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey2721 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 a gun is a tool used for plinking metal targets down range Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco-REX Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 No one needs 400hp cars either. Let's put limits on HP and have yearly inspections to make sure cars remain stock. For every person killed by a gun, THREE die via vehicle. If we're going to spend the time and money making new laws in order to save lives, let's start where there's a larger opportunity for improvement. Let's get a better quality of driver on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 You remind me of someone who uses too many apostrophes Are-you-sure-you-don't-mean-hyphen-? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 A gun is a tool with many purposes. To simplify it to a matter of being "designed to kill" is disingenuous reduction, and implying of evil intent. On the contrary, the primary function of the firearms I purchase is to defend. Or the exact opposite of the implied intent liberals apply to all guns in general, in attempt to hammer (get it, hammer) home the message that gun-owners are violent, by nature of the desire to own firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey2721 Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 honestly one of the biggest drives for me with firearms is historical interest. i dont own a ar at the moment. worried about the possibility of not being able to buy one in the future. i would be more pissed though if i couldnt buy a m1 garand or m1a/m14. (dont get me wrong i want to build a ar or three.) they are not killing machines to me. they are something i enjoy shooting a sport like golf that i can improve my skill at on my own. to me a day at the range can be very relaxing. just like golf for some. hell i love snakes think they are some of the most beautiful creatures god ever put on this earth... others think only good snake is a dead one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTA09 Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 If guns kill people, then spoons make you fat! When the fat bitch puts down the spoon, I'll put down my gun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelliganx1 Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 When you say that guns are designed for one thing and that is killing what is that based on? I would argue that far more rounds have been fired that didn't hurt a soul than have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelliganx1 Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 My point being that a hammer is designed to exert a large amount of force on a specific point whether it be to pound in a nail, knock something loose, crush something, or kill someone. A gun is designed to send a particular sized projectile to a target with relative accuracy and dependability whether its target shooting, hunting, or killing someone. Both of these tools are used far more often in the act of NOT killing someone than they are used in the act OF killing something so why is a gun a killing machine and a hammer is a useful tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustlestiltskin Posted January 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 honestly one of the biggest drives for me with firearms is historical interest. i dont own a ar at the moment. worried about the possibility of not being able to buy one in the future. i would be more pissed though if i couldnt buy a m1 garand or m1a/m14. (dont get me wrong i want to build a ar or three.) they are not killing machines to me. they are something i enjoy shooting a sport like golf that i can improve my skill at on my own. to me a day at the range can be very relaxing. just like golf for some. hell i love snakes think they are some of the most beautiful creatures god ever put on this earth... others think only good snake is a dead one. I feel the same way. Although I do own an AR, I mainly am interested is historical background of firearms. I'm slowly picking up fun older war relic rifles n what not and hope to have some pistols soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinisterSS Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 You're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying that calling a gun a tool is inaccurate, I'm saying the argument that all tools should be treated equally is silly. Dynamite is also a tool. It's very good at helping us access minerals in the earth and is way more efficient than a pickaxe. Does that mean every American should be able to stock their toolshed full of it? The "NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN HAMMERS" argument is just as silly as the "EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE DYNAMITE" argument IMO. I understand what your saying, I'm just pointing out that the media is stuck in black & white over looking the grey area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 So it turns out he used an .22 AR15. But they are still calling an Assault rifle :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 A gun is a tool. It is the greatest tool ever created for stopping a government from tyrannically controlling the population. Except when that government has Drones... and missiles, and fighter jets, and tanks. Do you legitimately believe that a rag tag group of gun owners can legitimately mount such a defense? Do ARs really make the battle symmetrical? It isn't the nineteenth century anymore. Question two, In a percentage 0-100: how far along are we on a path in which we have to "defend ourselves from a tyrannical government"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ansonivan Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Except when that government has Drones... and missiles, and fighter jets, and tanks. Do you legitimately believe that a rag tag group of gun owners can legitimately mount such a defense? Do ARs really make the battle symmetrical? It isn't the nineteenth century anymore. Look at what a bunch of ragtag gun owners has done in Afghanistan, no they're not winning a war but they're being a huge pain in the ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Look at what a bunch of ragtag gun owners has done in Afghanistan, no they're not winning a war but they're being a huge pain in the ass. So do you believe a tyrannical government that necessitated overthrow would handle Afghanistan the same way the insurgency has been addressed by the US? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjxlr8 Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 So do you believe a tyrannical government that necessitated overthrow would handle Afghanistan the same way the insurgency has been addressed by the US? Syria might be a better example. The government opposition is doing very well against modern military equipment. A few AKs can get you access to much more advanced gear if you use them correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Syria's army is 1/300th the size and strength of the US. On Spending alone: US Military Spending: 689,591,000,000 Syria Military Spending: 2,236,000,000 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.