Man accussed of threatening POTUS gets his 70 guns back.

[BiscuitTrouser]

Moral semantics.

I could just as easily say that a gun is capable of providing necessary animal protein for food, while knives are just for mutilating formerly living plant life.

It sounds ridiculous, but it's the exact same statement flipped to a moral system that values plant life over animal.

Intent dictates the purpose of any tool, period.

In that case may i possess my vat full of genetically altered super anthrax? How about an atomic bomb. Or a tank. Or for that matter several very powerfull explosives.

All tools. But you draw an arbitrary line between "tool you can have" and "tool you cant have because unneccessary danger for a tool that serves little other purpose". I argue that the position of this line is rather arbitrary and while i love guns i often wonder why they dont fall the other side of this line.

 

[Zaik]

Moral semantics.

I could just as easily say that a gun is capable of providing necessary animal protein for food, while knives are just for mutilating formerly living plant life.

It sounds ridiculous, but it's the exact same statement flipped to a moral system that values plant life over animal.

Intent dictates the purpose of any tool, period.

In that case may i possess my vat full of genetically altered super anthrax? How about an atomic bomb. Or a tank. Or for that matter several very powerfull explosives.

All tools. But you draw an arbitrary line between "tool you can have" and "tool you cant have because unneccessary danger for a tool that serves little other purpose". I argue that the position of this line is rather arbitrary and while i love guns i often wonder why they dont fall the other side of this line.

What, exactly, do you intend to do with super anthrax or an atomic bomb? By all means, explain that one. Can you think of any legitimate use for an atomic bomb or super anthrax? I can for their existence, but not for their personal use.

You are dismissing all guns as tools of war or murder when they have been actively used to provide food for their entire existance, while raising up the knife as only useful, which has been a tool of murder for just as long as it has been a means of getting or preparing food.

You...don't understand what is wrong with that?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

What, exactly, do you intend to do with super anthrax or an atomic bomb? By all means, explain that one. Can you think of any legitimate use for an atomic bomb or super anthrax? I can for their existence, but not for their personal use.

You are dismissing all guns as tools of war or murder when they have been actively used to provide food for their entire existance, while raising up the knife as only useful, which has been a tool of murder for just as long as it has been a means of getting or preparing food.

You...don't understand what is wrong with that?

Maybe i just want to collect them. I could go duck hunting with anthrax. Just boil it up when it dies. Im saying that they are not exclusive tools of war and murder. They DO have use. Just very very very rarely. And only really for a very select few individuals who need to hunt and eat. We draw a line between a tool that has use but is too dangerous to society and tools that are not. Youve drawn it. Ive drawn it. The question of where seems fairly arbitrary.

If you please, define YOUR rule for how we classify what falls on the other side of the line.

 

[manaman]

Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

I have over 300 guns.

I keep them in my murder room, and of course each time I get a new gun I run out and kill someone with it, because it just isn't right to display a gun that hasn't killed anyone.

I really do have over 300 guns only five of which to my knowledge have ever been used to kill someone. All five of the guns where used in WWII.

I think your comments are ridiculous and shortsighted, if you couldn't tell.

 

[Phasmal]

Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

I have over 300 guns.

I keep them in my murder room, and of course each time I get a new gun I run out and kill someone with it, because it just isn't right to display a gun that hasn't killed anyone.

I really do have over 300 guns only five of which to my knowledge have ever been used to kill someone. All five of the guns where used in WWII.

I think your comments are ridiculous and shortsighted, if you couldn't tell.

And I explained many posts ago that I was freaking kidding. And I'm still getting quoted for it.

EDIT: Just to be clear. You could have a house made of guns and I would not give a crap.

Defensive much? Take a joke, and a chill pill.

 

[Zaik]

What, exactly, do you intend to do with super anthrax or an atomic bomb? By all means, explain that one. Can you think of any legitimate use for an atomic bomb or super anthrax? I can for their existence, but not for their personal use.

You are dismissing all guns as tools of war or murder when they have been actively used to provide food for their entire existance, while raising up the knife as only useful, which has been a tool of murder for just as long as it has been a means of getting or preparing food.

You...don't understand what is wrong with that?

Maybe i just want to collect them. I could go duck hunting with anthrax. Just boil it up when it dies. Im saying that they are not exclusive tools of war and murder. They DO have use. Just very very very rarely. And only really for a very select few individuals who need to hunt and eat. We draw a line between a tool that has use but is too dangerous to society and tools that are not. Youve drawn it. Ive drawn it. The question of where seems fairly arbitrary.

If you please, define YOUR rule for how we classify what falls on the other side of the line.

I already did. Intent.

You could intend to defend yourself, however anything you've just mentioned fails horribly at doing so. Both atomic bombs and super anthrax would kill you well before you escaped their killzone. They also leave a large amount of collateral damage that you most likely didn't intend to cause, unless

Therefore, you can not possibly legitimately intend to defend yourself with either.

Lets skip over a million wrong ways to use it, and go with how it can be used properly.

Super anthrax strains can be created to study their effects and develop countermeasures. If you intend to do so, by all means, go right ahead. There are guidelines for working with the DoD on such matters that I'm sure they would be more than willing to discuss with you, provided you show you have the financial backing to gather the equipment, personnel, and put in place the security necessary to make sure it doesn't end up in the wrong hands. Want to do that?

Atomic bomb, same thing. When everyone can blow up the world 50 times over, starting a war is entirely pointless. If you personally can meet the requirements to work with the DoD in a missile silo, by all means, go right ahead.

You aren't ever going to do either of those things, so why even ask about them?

 

[aPod]

Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

I have a game collection of 200+ video games... and that's just my PC.

Why do I need so many games? It's kind of batshit mental.

I get your visceral response to someone owning 70 guns but some people really love guns. They don't love guns because they go out and kill people but because guns are cool, and fun.

If I had the cash... holy crap I'd buy so many awesome guns. A nice Satori Over Under shotgun for starters. How about one of each variation and generation of glock.

If you aren't into or just don't get someones hobby it might be hard to understand why someone would 'need' much of anything. Most of us here are gamers, I bet a fair amount of us have game collections most people who aren't gamers would go "What's wrong with you?"

Just trying to give it some perspective.

Edit: By the way I know you had said you were kidding but other people have responded in much the same way. Sorry for picking on you.

 

[manaman]

Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

I have over 300 guns.

I keep them in my murder room, and of course each time I get a new gun I run out and kill someone with it, because it just isn't right to display a gun that hasn't killed anyone.

I really do have over 300 guns only five of which to my knowledge have ever been used to kill someone. All five of the guns where used in WWII.

I think your comments are ridiculous and shortsighted, if you couldn't tell.

And I explained many posts ago that I was freaking kidding. And I'm still getting quoted for it.

Defensive much? Take a joke, and a chill pill.

I didn't notice the thread had so many replies. I don't normally bother with threads past the first couple of pages. I did read the first page, but failed to read beyond that.

That said no. I won't take a "chill pill" mostly because I don't need too. I am perpetually calm these days. My temper seems to be dead. Any thing other than sarcasm you read into that was your own creation. At worst you could describe it as aggressive, defensive wouldn't really enter into it. I'm going to guess defensive is actually how you are feeling about the way the whole thing turned on you.

I also don't believe you where joking. Exaggerating maybe, joking no. It wasn't written in any way you would right something you intended to be taken as a joke.

I still think your comment was shortsighted.

 

[Phasmal]

I still think your comment was shortsighted.

I don't care. I was joking. Let it be, for fucks sake. I doooont caaaareee.

 

[manaman]

I still think your comment was shortsighted.

I don't care. I was joking. Let it be, for fucks sake. I doooont caaaareee.

You care or you wouldn't be replying.

 

[Phasmal]

I still think your comment was shortsighted.

I don't care. I was joking. Let it be, for fucks sake. I doooont caaaareee.

You care or you wouldn't be replying.

I'm replying cause you're quoting me!
Jeez. Leeeeave it. (And if you turn this to a childish `No you leave it` thing then I wont reply anymore, I'm not interested).

 

[manaman]

I still think your comment was shortsighted.

I don't care. I was joking. Let it be, for fucks sake. I doooont caaaareee.

You care or you wouldn't be replying.

I'm replying cause you're quoting me!
Jeez. Leeeeave it. (And if you turn this to a childish `No you leave it` thing then I wont reply anymore, I'm not interested).

And you are quoting me.

Only with the added bonus of trying to tell me that doing the same thing you have been doing up to this point is going to make me childish.

Nice.

 

[manaman]

30 day jail for being overheard hypothetically discussing the ease of killing the president? Oh it gets better: he allegedly made racist remarks. Did he allegedly kill a puppy and pee on its corpse, too? Why not throw that in there.

Free speech my ass. This country is so incredibly far up its own ass in fear that it's turning into a fascist state. "Oh you can say whatever you want, as long as we don't hear you say it". What's next, nationwide Homeland Security check of each house or apartment to see if there's TERRORIST MATERIAL in there?

"Guten Tag, herr Smith. Ve are here on behalf of Homeland Zecurity to check if you are hiding TERRORISM in your attic."

You keep saying that, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Free speech has never meant you have no responsibility for what you say. It's protections form the government for speaking out against the government.

Take for example libel and slander. You have protections from the government when you express your opinion, but those protections don't cover your ass when your opinion turns out to not be truthful, and you cause real economic damage to someone else.

In no way is it a get out of jail free card. Yes by all appearances they went over board on the man, but I don't know what really happened. I know that nobody goes to jail for just saying someone should shoot the president.

 

[Phasmal]

I still think your comment was shortsighted.

I don't care. I was joking. Let it be, for fucks sake. I doooont caaaareee.

You care or you wouldn't be replying.

I'm replying cause you're quoting me!
Jeez. Leeeeave it. (And if you turn this to a childish `No you leave it` thing then I wont reply anymore, I'm not interested).

And you are quoting me.

Only with the added bonus of trying to tell me that doing the same thing you have been doing up to this point is going to make me childish.

Nice.

Clearly what you want is for me to ignore you. Okay then I guess?
Not sure why you had to start a big hissy fit because I made a joke you didnt find funny. But oh well. (And no dont answer me, I wont read anything you quote me for).

 

[James Crook]

He was speaking hypothetically for fuck's sake! Why can't people understand when others aren't being serious? Sure, he shouldn't have talked so loud about such things in such a manner, but this was a bit exaggerated...

 

[aPod]

"Oh you can say whatever you want, as long as we don't hear you say it".

Of course the solution to this is to make sure you can't say anything without being heard. http://www.naturalnews.com/035355_CIA_television_surveillance.html (don't know if it's a credible source but it's something).

 

[manaman]

I still think your comment was shortsighted.

I don't care. I was joking. Let it be, for fucks sake. I doooont caaaareee.

You care or you wouldn't be replying.

I'm replying cause you're quoting me!
Jeez. Leeeeave it. (And if you turn this to a childish `No you leave it` thing then I wont reply anymore, I'm not interested).

And you are quoting me.

Only with the added bonus of trying to tell me that doing the same thing you have been doing up to this point is going to make me childish.

Nice.

Clearly what you want is for me to ignore you. Okay then I guess?
Not sure why you had to start a big hissy fit because I made a joke you didnt find funny. But oh well. (And no dont answer me, I wont read anything you quote me for).

Oh I am going to answer you. I'm pretty far from having a hissy fit, I am actually enjoying this immensely.

Each time you quote me I smile. Then I have a little chuckle at what you say, because I know you won't actually do it.

 

[Von Strimmer]

As an Australian I have no real need for a gun, or find them useful in any way.

You must live in a populated area.

Did the man who created the first gun think "I shall use this to cut down trees". No it was used to kill and win wars/hunt animals.

Actually the first man/woman (we do not know which) who invented the gun thought it made pretty lights. The first gun was a glorified bottle rocket (cool but non-lethal).

Yes guns have evolved, all technology evolves, saying a nail gun or flare gun is the same as a gun that fires bullets is the same as me saying a Ford Mondeo is the same as driving a tank. Sure both are vehicles to drive and can be used to kill, but a car is a tool and a tank is a weapon, same as a gun and a flare or nail gun.

The term gun is a general category of tool. Hammer is category of tool and that category includes many weapons.

Also more people have knives than guns, and tend to not be as serious with knives as guns. Because they see the knife as a tool, and the gun as a weapon.

Actually in my particular home town there are about as many guns are there are knives. We all view guns as tools because we use them for lots of different things. Hell, most people would never leave home without their guns because they need to be able to use them on a regular basis.

BTW just a category of tool is more ubiquitous does mean that another category of tool does have many uses.

Or because our Prime Minister at the time thought everyone owning guns was a bit stupid and decided to by them from the people, not many shootings in Australia anymore its mostly drug and gang shootings.

Perhaps I was wrong about the first gun use, they sure do make pretty lights assuming your not on the recieving end. But every gun is manufactured to kill something.

Also (in Australia) a gun comes under a weapon category, as it is a weapon which is designed to kill.

Could you tell me what other things you use a gun for apart from killing or self defence? Does it not make sense that if the general public didn't have a gun, you wouldn't need a gun?

Also owning 70 guns is stupid, if that guy gets robbed and his guns get stolen then thats 70 weapons distributed amongst criminals to use, and I dont think they will be using them as a tool.

Look we are clearly of two very different mind sets to gun, I really dont have an issue with your opinion I just dont happen to agree with it. If you use guns as a tool and use them properly and safely then I have no issue with what you do. However I will always think guns are a liability to the general public and have no reason to be owned by any member of the public (excluding police and farmers).