How do you feel about guns?

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Morning Star

I think we should all have a gun because crime is lower when they know you can shoot back!!!!!!!1

Something i Agree with you on...


plus we are less likely to be invaded if all the citizens are armed...


Especially if we were armed like this

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

If I collect coins as a hobby does that change the fact that the coins were designed as currency?

Just because we make a hobby out of something does not change the intended purpose of the item. I'm not sure how else to put it. You keep making the same claim, I make the same statement in response. Using something in a manner other than intended does not change the intended purpose. Not sure how much clearer to make that.

Your analogy is silly.

You're comparing me or you to a coin collecter just as you are military use to civilian use with the guns.

If that's what they were designed to do, why haven't more people shot other people? why would they still be on the shelves? As less than 1% of people are buying them for their unintended use!!!

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

Something i Agree with you on...


plus we are less likely to be invaded if all the citizens are armed...


Especially if we were armed like this

Watch out, someone might tell you that guns were destined to beat someone to a pulp.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Whodey23

Your analogy is silly.

You're comparing me or you to a coin collecter just as you are military use to civilian use with the guns.

If that's what they were designed to do, why haven't more people shot other people? why would they still be on the shelves? As less than 1% of people are buying them for their unintended use!!!

For as many people that own guns i agree its obiviously not that common for people just to go outside and shoot someone.

I for one am not ready to give up personal protection and rely on the government to do everything.. especially when the guns are ment to help protect us from our government too.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whodey23

Your analogy is silly.

You're comparing me or you to a coin collecter just as you are military use to civilian use with the guns.

If that's what they were designed to do, why haven't more people shot other people? why would they still be on the shelves? As less than 1% of people are buying them for their unintended use!!!

It's not a silly analogy at all. Just because you aren't understanding the logic doesn't make make it invalid.

[Morning Star]

well nobody shoots at people who are members of the NRA..I noticed that..

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

It's not a silly analogy at all. Just because you aren't understanding the logic doesn't make make it invalid.

As I could say the same about you not understanding the logic of military vs civilian use.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

For as many people that own guns i agree its obiviously not that common for people just to go outside and shoot someone.

Doesn't change what they were designed for.

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

I for one am not ready to give up personal protection and rely on the government to do everything.. especially when the guns are ment to help protect us from our government too.

Prohibiting the sale of firearms that are designed for military/LE use will not affect our ability to protect ourselves in any way, even from the government.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Doesn't change what they were designed for.



Prohibiting the sale of firearms that are designed for military/LE use will not affect our ability to protect ourselves in any way, even from the government.

I didnt say anything about military Guns...I dont expect to be able to buy rocket launchers or SAW's

But that doesnt mean all Assult Rifles should be consider a military weapon.

Hell no one could consider an uzi a military weapon and i dont think those should be street legal.

But on the other hand everyone should own a tommy gun Trench coat and Fedora...

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

I didnt say anything about military Guns...I dont expect to be able to buy rocket launchers or SAW's

But that doesnt mean all Assult Rifles should be consider a military weapon.

Hell no one could consider an uzi a military weapon and i dont think those should be street legal.

But on the other hand everyone should own a tommy gun Trench coat and Fedora...

Uzi, Thompson, assault rifles, they are all designed for military use. They are all designed to be offensive weapons to kill human beings.

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

I didnt say anything about military Guns...I dont expect to be able to buy rocket launchers or SAW's

But that doesnt mean all Assult Rifles should be consider a military weapon.

Hell no one could consider an uzi a military weapon and i dont think those should be street legal.

But on the other hand everyone should own a tommy gun Trench coat and Fedora...

Woohoo, It's your turn now. Thanks for relieving me

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I'm saying that if you say you are going to kill someone if they break into your house and then do so when someone tries, you'll have legal obligations. The operative word here is kill. If you say that you will shoot someone if they try and enter your home and then do so, it is a different story. It is called intent. When you throw the "kill" word around loosely, it is an issue.

You act like people DESIRE to kill another person. I don't get where you are picking that up at. I hope I am never in a situation where that decision has to be made. But if I am, In my state, you have the legal right to defend yourself and your family if there is imminent danger, to the point of your action being lethal. So, if someone breaks into my home, and threatens my family or me and our lives are in danger, then I will defend my life and my families lives. If people leave us alone, we all go on our merry way. I don't understand how this is even a discussion.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

You obviously don't know the castle law. It all depends on the state the individual is in. Regardless of his statements, if he is in a state were deadly force is allowed inside of his own home, he has legal right to kill an intruder intentionally. I know someone in AZ and from what they tell me you are right in your state, just not all states. Even outside of his home, the laws vary by state.

Yup.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Ah. I see. Thanks for the info. They didn't have that in OH when I lived there.

I still have a problem with people throwing the kill word around... particularly when the profess to be Christian.

What does being a Christian have to do with defending my family? Sigh.

I don't care what your stance on guns is, if you walked into your home and found a guy raping your wife or daughter, you aren't going to stand by and do nothing.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Uzi, Thompson, assault rifles, they are all designed for military use. They are all designed to be offensive weapons to kill human beings.

Orginally Swords Knives Bows/Arrows Crossbows etc were also designed for military use so obviously no one should be allowed to collect those either right?

And yes guns were designed to kill people effecintly. War will do that (sparks innovation in killing machines)

but it doesnt change the fact that the gun by itself is harmless without a HUMAN to load and aim and discharge the weapon.

Humans are the killers guns are still a TOOL designed to be used by people for their end.

That doesnt mean guns cant be used for non military purposes like many citizens responsibly do today.

[CinciREborn]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I still have a problem with people throwing the kill word around... particularly when the profess to be Christian.

Cool story

I have a problem when people profess to be Christians and then post a ton of filth in threads like this http://boards.bengals.com/showthread.php?t=90572

[THEBURG]

Originally Posted by Whodey23

Civilians don't buy them for military use.

They're designed for a hobby for civilian use

Need to get a new hobby, they are winding up in the wrong hands.

[THEBURG]

Originally Posted by Morning Star

well nobody shoots at people who are members of the NRA..I noticed that..

NRA is a joke, it is for someone too lazy to work, and they can live off your dues, you think they will be helping a family that lost their child.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by CinciREborn

Cool story

I have a problem when people profess to be Christians and then post a ton of filth in threads like this http://boards.bengals.com/showthread.php?t=90572

Nothing in that thread that I've posted that I wouldn't share with my pastor.

How about you? Are you willing to share your fantasies about killing people with your pastor?

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

Orginally Swords Knives Bows/Arrows Crossbows etc were also designed for military use so obviously no one should be allowed to collect those either right?

And yes guns were designed to kill people effecintly. War will do that (sparks innovation in killing machines)

but it doesnt change the fact that the gun by itself is harmless without a HUMAN to load and aim and discharge the weapon.

Humans are the killers guns are still a TOOL designed to be used by people for their end.

That doesnt mean guns cant be used for non military purposes like many citizens responsibly do today.

Not all firearms are designed to be used on the offensive to kill humans. Those are the only ones I am talking about. I have been saying all along they are a tool for doing so, so we agree. So why should tools used to be offensive weapons to kill humans, an illegal act, be legal?

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Nothing in that thread that I've posted that I wouldn't share with my pastor.

How about you? Are you willing to share your fantasies about killing people with your pastor?

Just stop. Seriously. Nobody shared any fantasy about WANTING to kill people.

Do you have an issue with the law here in my state that says I can defend my family if a threat on their life takes place? If so, don't live here. Plain and simple. Live in New York or some other state that says you have to shoo them off with a flyswatter. As I said, I hope I never, ever have to be confronted with a dangerous situation such as this. I have zero desire to hurt anyone (which is where most anti-gun folks miss the point. They tend to believe gun owners own guns to try to hurt others, and that's not the case). However, my legal rights in my state say I can defend myself. You may not like it, whatever. But don't throw around statements like the one above when they are flat out false. I live where I live for a reason. I wouldn't move my family to a state that says I can't defend them. That's just ridiculous.

[CinciREborn]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Nothing in that thread that I've posted that I wouldn't share with my pastor.

How about you? Are you willing to share your fantasies about killing people with your pastor?

I would never sit under a pastor who would condone some of the things you posted in there

And yes I would share with my pastor
The harmless sense of humor I have here is the same one I have in real life

Always smile, laugh and just enjoy life.

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Not all firearms are designed to be used on the offensive to kill humans. Those are the only ones I am talking about. I have been saying all along they are a tool for doing so, so we agree. So why should tools used to be offensive weapons to kill humans, an illegal act, be legal?

Killing is not always illegal. Sure they can be misused for murder, but as many have pointed out, so can other items.

However unlikely, scenarios COULD exist where the type of fire power you are referencing would be necessary for defense or otherwise legal killing. I personally don't see the likelihood being high enough to own one of these weapons, but I have met sane people who don't agree.

Considering in another thread you approached the actual problem with the murders people are using to implement gun control, I'm surprised you are focusing on the symptom. Cause is societal, symptom is the killings.

[CinciREborn]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Just stop. Seriously. Nobody shared any fantasy about WANTING to kill people.

Thank you

I just realized what he ment by that
My pastor, is a gun owning, second amendment supporting believer who proudly stands for the same things our founding fathers stood for

I like freedom

If you want socialism go to canada

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

Killing is not always illegal. Sure they can be misused for murder, but as many have pointed out, so can other items.

However unlikely, scenarios COULD exist where the type of fire power you are referencing would be necessary for defense or otherwise legal killing. I personally don't see the likelihood being high enough to own one of these weapons, but I have met sane people who don't agree.

Considering in another thread you approached the actual problem with the murders people are using to implement gun control, I'm surprised you are focusing on the symptom. Cause is societal, symptom is the killings.

Notice I differentiate between the offensive killing, and defensive killing. Weapons designed for military/LE use are for offensive purposes.

And these types of events do not color my opinion, this has been my opinion for a long time just based on my views.