General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Your second amendment rights are getting in the way of our rights. [View all]rl6214
(8,142 posts)Let's see, vehickle were brought up here:
Chef Eric (612 posts)
59. Assault weapons are designed to kill people. Motor vehicles aren't.
See the difference?
My comment here didn't say they were "killing machines" just said they do kill:
rl6214 (6,371 posts)
64. Then assault weapons are doing what they are designed for, motor vehicles on the other hand
are not doing what they are designed for, must be a design flaw and they must all be eliminated for being defective.
"Then, when I pointed out that there is a difference, you went off on another tangent, suggesting that vehicles that are used to kill are defective. Of course, they are not defective, and you know it. Vehicles are designed to move, and vehicles that are used to kill people are vehicles that move."
I know it's hard for you to understand but PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE OF CARS, LOTS MORE THAN BY GUNS, you wanna get your panties in a bunch, do it over something that kills that is not intended to kill.
"Do you believe that ALL weapons should be readily available to private citizens? Rocket-propelled grenades? Artillery? Cluster bombs?"
Ahhhh, not that tired old arguement again, let's give everyone atomic bombs. Do you know what "arms" as in "keep and bear arms"? Arms were the hand held weapons of their day that the military of that day carried. That would have been a musket. They carried and took home with them a musket, not rocket-propelled grenades or artillery (cannons), a musket. Fast forward to what the modern military might take home, that would be the M16, a shotgun, a personal sidearm.
You also posted this:
Chef Eric (612 posts)
70. Nerve gas is effective at doing what it's designed for, too.
Perhaps one should be able to get a license to purchase nerve gas?
To which I replied and seemed to get your knickers in a twist.