Quote:That' s not a right. It' s a privelidge.


Rights don' t need justification.

And that's the problem it's regarded as a right despite all logic showing that it shouldn't be 

Quote:Prove you are an idiot - we can take any or all of your rights away.

Proof it shouldn't be a right 

Quote:That' s how it works here.

You mean works on logic. Yes it does 

(October 17, 2021 at 4:17 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Go figure..

I guess that means bows and arrows are more deadly than guns....

5 killed 2 injured in bow and arrow rampage.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58906165



(Actual point - we don' t have a gun problem. We have a people problem)

That’s a fair point. At the Battle of Agingcourt, some 6000 people were killed by bows and arrows, none by gunfire.

For what it’s worth, I was simply relating a news story, not trying to start another gun debate.

Boru

Quote:That’s a fair point. At the Battle of Agingcourt, some 6000 people were killed by bows and arrows, none by gunfire.

Boru

Now, how many more would have died if they had guns?

(October 17, 2021 at 4:55 pm)Helios Wrote:

Quote:That’s a fair point. At the Battle of Agingcourt, some 6000 people were killed by bows and arrows, none by gunfire.

Boru

Now, how many more would have died if they had guns?

I’m gonna guess…6?

sarcasm (noun): the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Boru

(October 17, 2021 at 4:57 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 17, 2021 at 4:55 pm)Helios Wrote: Now, how many more would have died if they had guns?

I’m gonna guess…6?

 (noun): the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Boru

In my defense, Sarcasm is hard to read into plain text without any indication that its sarcasm

(October 17, 2021 at 5:00 pm)Helios Wrote:

(October 17, 2021 at 4:57 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I’m gonna guess…6?

 (noun): the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Boru

In my defense, Sarcasm is hard to read into plain text without any indication that its sarcasm

Given that no one could possibly have been killed by gunfire at Agingcourt because there WERE no guns at Agingcourt, thought my meaning was pretty plain. But no need to defend yourself - OLB seems to have missed the sarcasm, too.

No weapon is more ‘deadly’ than another. The deadliness of any weapon is situational.

Boru

(October 17, 2021 at 5:04 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 17, 2021 at 5:00 pm)Helios Wrote: In my defense, Sarcasm is hard to read into plain text without any indication that its sarcasm

Given that no one could possibly have been killed by gunfire at Agingcourt because there WERE no guns at Agingcourt, thought my meaning was pretty plain.

No weapon is more ‘dangerous’ than another. The danger of any weapon is situational.

Boru

1. I'm aware there were no guns in Agincourt as it was before modern firearms. Which is why I said IF they had guns.

2. Also I think I misunderstood who you were directing the sarcasm at. Sorry about that. I thought you were directing in at OLB via your original comment.

3. No, a modern gun is pretty much the pinnacle of personnel arms in terms of practicality and effectiveness, and versatility.

(October 17, 2021 at 5:04 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 17, 2021 at 5:00 pm)Helios Wrote: In my defense, Sarcasm is hard to read into plain text without any indication that its sarcasm

Given that no one could possibly have been killed by gunfire at Agingcourt because there WERE no guns at Agingcourt, thought my meaning was pretty plain. But no need to defend yourself - OLB seems to have missed the sarcasm, too.

No weapon is more ‘deadly’ than another. The deadliness of any weapon is situational.

Boru

Absolutely. I' m glad you understand.


This is what makes high capacity magazine bans ludicrous.

How deadly ANY weapon is determined by only one factor - the skill of the user.

And yeah - I get sarcasm


I speak it fluently.

Quote:Absolutely. I' m glad you understand.


This is what makes high capacity magazine bans ludicrous

The capacity of ammo matters as does the ease and speed of expending said ammo

Quote:How deadly ANY weapon is determined by only one factor - the skill of the user.

Nope, the easy use and easy to train nature of guns blow skill requirements away.

(October 17, 2021 at 4:17 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Go figure..

I guess that means bows and arrows are more deadly than guns....

5 killed 2 injured in bow and arrow rampage.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58906165



(Actual point - we don' t have a gun problem. We have a people problem)

Did you really mean to write "we don't have a gun problem" ?  You do  realise that cunning bit of idiotic sophistry was invented by some cynical arsehole in the NRA?     Oh, I get it, you're taking the piss in't cha. 

Due to a wilful misinterpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, at this point you don't need to justify having a gun or allowing others to have guns.  It's a legal right, period. Hopefully, some US legislators will one day grow the spine to do what over 60% of Americans seem to want; pass some laws restricting the possession and use of firearms in US society. EG I'm not entirely convinced it's a good idea to allow urban dwellers to have Uzi sub machine guns, automatic assault rifles or 50mm machine guns, to name just three weapons which provide overkill..

None of the justification for allowing civilians having firearms survive even casual scrutiny. Gun owners should give up. If a person criticises your gun ownership, just tell them to fuck off. It's a right so far protected by the Second Amendment. So you don't need to justify shit.  Of course the problem with constitutional rights is they can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.  NO? I refer you to the internment of Japanese American citizens during world war two. Neither German nor Italian Americans  were interred.  Too long ago?  Have a read of The Patriot Act (2001)