Let's cut through the BS. Do GUNS kill people, OR...

[TzarChasm]

Trump was pretty quick to claim God's favour (although why he would think that God would favour an unrepentant, lying, thieving, womanizing, divorced, tax-cheating, vindictive and boastful person, I don't know).

But seriously, do you think that some twit with a firearm could best God or His favoured? That shows a problem with comprehension.

I think some twit with a firearm demonstrates the woeful absence of divine intervention, and thus the moral imperative to carry your own weapon, every day. There's no intellectual superiority in a corpse. Your family will thank you to seek proper instruction and arm yourself for their safety.

[chr0naut]

I think some twit with a firearm demonstrates the woeful absence of divine intervention

Not if that divinity grants free will.

The fact that immoral actions are frequently unsuccessful, and often have dire negative consequence, and that there are a large contingent of those protective of moral and ethical standards, would indicate that free will, divine intervention and some sort of higher morality all exist and are operant.

, and thus the moral imperative to carry your own weapon, every day. There's no intellectual superiority in a corpse. Your family will thank you to seek proper instruction and arm yourself for their safety.

There is no moral imperative to carry a weapon. Such is either immoral (in the case where you intend to do harm) or amoral (in the case where you imagine to yourself that it is purely defensive).

In a society where no-one has intent to use or carry a weapon, there is no danger from any weapon.

The weapons themselves are non-sentient, inert and unintentional. It is in the hands of a wielder that a weapon becomes a danger. It is the combination, and only the combination, that kills.

[chr0naut]

So, you understand that pencils (or pens, or computers, or any inanimate objects) don't have volition.    Why do you think guns do?   

I don't think guns have volition. I clearly stated it in the post to which you were replying.

I didn't say that I don't support gun controls.   Unlike you, I answered the thread question.  You now apparently understand that guns don't kill people. 

Guns are a tool specifically designed with the purpose of harming and\or killing. The functional intent, from the get-go is to inflict harm. Apart from their primary designed function, they have no alternate utility. Many accessories, such as hollow point rounds, are clearly to amplify deadliness.

People do that. 

People who don't have access to projectile weapons, cannot shoot anyone. Again, it is the combination that is the threat of harm.

People as conscious sentient beings have a natural right to exist in liberty and safety under the law.

Guns, as inanimate objects have no rights at all.

Cars also don't kill people, but the people driving them.   

Cars, knives and power tools all have benign primary functions.

You incorrectly assumed my position based upon your own projection.    Debate and discussion is enjoyable for me, however not with people who get angry.   I like to know what people think, and I find more by listening, than talking.

OK. But it does seem to me that you want more to take issue with those with different opinions to you.

[TzarChasm]

Not if that divinity grants free will.

The fact that immoral actions are frequently unsuccessful, and often have dire negative consequence, and that there are a large contingent of those protective of moral and ethical standards, would indicate that free will, divine intervention and some sort of higher morality all exist and are operant.


There is no moral imperative to carry a weapon. Such is either immoral (in the case where you intend to do harm) or amoral (in the case where you imagine to yourself that it is purely defensive).

In a society where no-one has intent to use or carry a weapon, there is no danger from any weapon.

The weapons themselves are non-sentient, inert and unintentional. It is in the hands of a wielder that a weapon becomes a danger. It is the combination, and only the combination, that kills.

Moral imperative is abstract, not a legal requirement, some might argue civic duty. My point was that the nature and society insists you should have the means to defend your person and home. It's a practical device, solving for a situation where you don't get a second chance if you're perhaps too invested in miracles. It's also useful for putting meat in the freezer, which is a fun bonus and unrelated to hypothetically shooting a home invader.

[chr0naut]

Guns kill people like forks make you fat.

Bigger issue is do governments oppress and kill people after they disarm their citizens?

No more than they do when their citizens are armed. Take for instance the Waco siege or Ruby Ridge. but the proof of the ineffectiveness of the 2nd amendment to oppose tyranny goes back further than those two modern instances:

10 Tragic Times The US Government Massacred Striking Workers

Several times the US government forces have opposed US citizens by force of arms, often fatally. At no stage have those who rebel against the US government forces, ever won.

The 2nd amendment is based upon a disproven fantasy that the superior government military and police forces can be overcome by force of arms, by its citizenry.

[chr0naut]

Moral imperative is abstract, not a legal requirement, some might argue civic duty. My point was that the nature and society insists you should have the means to defend your person and home. It's a practical device, solving for a situation where you don't get a second chance if you're perhaps too invested in miracles. It's also useful for putting meat in the freezer, which is a fun bonus and unrelated to hypothetically shooting a home invader.

The citizenry cannot defeat the superior forces of tyranny through force of arms. Historically, it has always been futile in the USA.

[pianopraze]

No more than they do when their citizens are armed. Take for instance the Waco siege or Ruby Ridge. but the proof of the ineffectiveness of the 2nd amendment to oppose tyranny goes back further than those two modern instances:

10 Tragic Times The US Government Massacred Striking Workers

Several times the US government forces have opposed US citizens by force of arms, often fatally. At no stage have those who rebel against the US government forces, ever won.

The 2nd amendment is based upon a disproven fantasy that the superior government military and police forces can be overcome by force of arms, by its citizenry.

Yes absolutely, that compares to what China and Russia and other countries did.

100 percent.

[chr0naut]

Yes absolutely, that compares to what China and Russia and other countries did.

100 percent.

Neither China nor Russia have, or had, legislation that proposes to protect the masses from tyrannical government by arming its citizenry.

I was quite specific in pointing out how the arming of the citizenry has not given those citizens any defence against their governments overreach, in the only country that has legislature that arms the citizenry for that specific purpose.

It is extremely unlikely that the grassroots of US citizens would rise-up in a communistic revolution.

[pianopraze]

Neither China nor Russia have, or had, legislation that proposes to protect the masses from tyrannical government by arming its citizenry.

I was quite specific in pointing out how the arming of the citizenry has not given those citizens any defence against their governments overreach, in the only country that has legislature that arms the citizenry for that specific purpose.

It is extremely unlikely that the grassroots of US citizens would rise-up in a communistic revolution.

Those that don’t study history…

anyways enjoy. I’m out. Beyond tired of politics, I’ll be over in the ufo threads.