RE: Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse
September 9, 2020 at 11:48 pm
(This post was last modified: September 10, 2020 at 12:00 am by The Architect Of Fate.)
(September 9, 2020 at 6:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:It's a single use item by intent the mere fact you can modify something does not disprove that fact . But this seems like an impasse so i'll just agree to disagree .(September 9, 2020 at 9:45 am)SUNGULA Wrote: Guns were invented for war hunting was a later development . Handguns and Assault Rifle were designed with human targets in mind . That is simply a fact .
So what? That doesn’t mean that they’re single-use items. Bows and arrows were originally designed to kill animals, but there are plenty of archers around today who’ve never done that. Tin openers were originally designed to (big surprise) open tins, but I’ve got one that makes a dandy fipple scraper.
Bel’s point was that the only USE for guns is to kill people, and that’s not true. And that is also ‘simply a fact’.
(September 9, 2020 at 5:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote:I was responding to the charge i fell afoul of the generic fallacy . Which i pointed out simply pointing out fire arms were military in nature does not do .And the wiki article answers your statement doubting if that fact was true .(September 9, 2020 at 3:12 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: It's generic fallacy to simply point out that the original intent of fire arms was military in nature .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm
Um, what?
(September 9, 2020 at 4:50 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:What?(September 9, 2020 at 4:00 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Stalking is wrong period
Jaysus, you sound JUST like my ex-girlfriends.
Boru
(September 9, 2020 at 6:33 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Or I could be pointing out that the injuries Martin inflicted on Zimmerman could themselves be considered self-defense. Think about it: a stranger is following you around at night and he chases you down a dark alleyway. Tell me, you're a strong believer in self-defense, does this sound like a situation where you could justifiably retaliate against someone who very likely means to do you harm? Is it legal? Do you at least see where someone who would do such a thing is coming from? Because, frankly, in this case, I can, and in the absence of evidence that he actually had any criminal intent that night, I see no reason to doubt that this could have been why he hit Zimmerman.But Rye people are allowed to follow you around and not allowed to do anything about it , And Zimmerman could not have simply not followed him . That's asking too much .
Martin could have swung first, but then again, Zimmerman might have just slapped him before Martin punched him, or maybe Zimmerman made a swing at him and Trayvon reacted before Zimmerman actually hit him. Only two people know what really happened: one's dead and the other's word, frankly, cannot be trusted.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


