Münster vehicle attack...

[HappyJoy]

Yes, thankfully. Your firearm is designed to kill just the same.

No, it isn't. Based on your rational then cars, which are far fewer in number, and kill far more people were designed only to kill. In the USA there are over 300,000,000 firearms, and they kill (through all reasons, legal, and illegal) 30,000 per year. There are 263 million cars in the USA and they kill 1,300,000 per year. So, based on numbers alone it is clear that cars are only designed to kill people because they sure do it a hell of a lot more.

Shocker, your logic is flawed.

More people own cars than guns, it's just that people who own guns own a lot.

Also, even if one does not own a gun more Americans interact with cars whether as a passenger, driver or pedestrian than they encounter guns.

I mean, Jesus Christ people, pull your heads out of your asses and try to make a rational argument. A car is designed for transportation, not to kill.

Guns, are not designed for anything else but to shoot a projectile at a high velocity, not to penetrate a paper target but to cut through a living being.

If you really want to own a gun that is not meant for this purpose I have one option for you:

You are projecting a purpose onto a gun that simply does not exist.

Your argument is also flawed in that ownership of a gun is a natural right, ownership of a car is not. It doesn't matter how many or how few own or use either.

No, the only argument I see that a gun is not designed to kill is it's used for target practice. However many military firearms are only used in target practice, but that isn't the reason the military has firearms.

actually, the only argument being put forward by the left is that guns kill people just by laying around. Or what do you think the whole "fewer guns = fewer shootings" argument equates to?

Nobody has argued that guns kill people just by laying around.

My guns have killed far fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

Technically it was the water that killed someone but who am I to get in the way of a very forced analogy.

 

[P@triot]

However, when you point the weapon at a person or animal and pull the trigger the intent, design and purpose for the weapon is more than apparent.

Oh...you mean like when you turn the wheel and push down on the peddle into a crowd of people, the “intent”, “design”, and “purpose” for the automobile is more than apparent?

HappyJoy?

 

[LuckyDuck]

If the left doesn’t march, petition, lobby, and demand that all automobiles be banned, then they have 0 credibility left.

Three dead as van drives into German crowd

This vehicle homicide doesn't sound particularly Islamic to me, Muslim terrorists target people up to the point where an infidel kills them, or the device they used to kill the infidels, also kills them. The point of Islamic martyrdom is to die killing infidels, not committing suicide after the act has been accomplished. I may be wrong, but this sounds more like some individual suffering from suicidal ideation, who wanted to take some people with him.

 

[P@triot]

My guns have killed far fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

Technically it was the water that killed someone but who am I to get in the way of a very forced analogy.

And Joy is forced to result to being disingenuous and snarky. Tell us, Joy, what lead to the woman being in the water?

 

[Darkwind]

No, it isn't. Based on your rational then cars, which are far fewer in number, and kill far more people were designed only to kill. In the USA there are over 300,000,000 firearms, and they kill (through all reasons, legal, and illegal) 30,000 per year. There are 263 million cars in the USA and they kill 1,300,000 per year. So, based on numbers alone it is clear that cars are only designed to kill people because they sure do it a hell of a lot more.

Shocker, your logic is flawed.

More people own cars than guns, it's just that people who own guns own a lot.

Also, even if one does not own a gun more Americans interact with cars whether as a passenger, driver or pedestrian than they encounter guns.

I mean, Jesus Christ people, pull your heads out of your asses and try to make a rational argument. A car is designed for transportation, not to kill.

Guns, are not designed for anything else but to shoot a projectile at a high velocity, not to penetrate a paper target but to cut through a living being.

If you really want to own a gun that is not meant for this purpose I have one option for you:

You are projecting a purpose onto a gun that simply does not exist.

Your argument is also flawed in that ownership of a gun is a natural right, ownership of a car is not. It doesn't matter how many or how few own or use either.

No, the only argument I see that a gun is not designed to kill is it's used for target practice. However many military firearms are only used in target practice, but that isn't the reason the military has firearms.

actually, the only argument being put forward by the left is that guns kill people just by laying around. Or what do you think the whole "fewer guns = fewer shootings" argument equates to?

Nobody has argued that guns kill people just by laying around.

My guns have killed far fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

Technically it was the water that killed someone but who am I to get in the way of a very forced analogy.

Where you there? She was trapped by the misuse of a car and drown. That cannot be refuted.

Of course you are. By making the illogical and asinine argument that if we have fewer AR-15's, there will be fewer killings.

There won't be, but its an argument that a bunch of AR-15's in an open and free society is going to cause gun deaths to rise.

ETA: If you wish to be technical, it is the sudden resistance to a lead pellets flight that causes death, not a gun.

 

[flacaltenn]

Drunk driver?

Drunk drivers don't usually commit suicide at the scene with a gun..

His girl might have left him. You never know.

OK.. But folks like that should not have cars and guns in Germany.. Right? OR the "suspicious package" they found in his vehicle yesterday or Jihadis on the dark web bragging about his actions..

 

[ptbw forever]

The difference being...

Automobile deaths are virtually all the result of accidental misuse of a necessary mode of transportation, while...

Gun deaths are virtually all the result of intentional and correct use of an unnecessary means of killing one's fellow human beings...

-------------

And, if we license operators of the former and register the vehicles used by the former...

We should definitely require the same measure of accountability from operators of the latter...

---------------

Nobody's looking to take away your guns...

Merely to ensure that you're properly vetted regarding a criminal or dangerous mental health background, properly licensed, properly trained...

Merely to ensure that your firearms are properly registered, that your acquisition and disposal transactions are properly approved and tracked...

Merely to ensure that you properly and periodically renew your license and registration and training...

Merely to ensure that you generally undertake the responsibility that should come with the exercise of your Right to Bear Arms in modern society.

----------------

These things are already largely being done in some States and in some jurisdictions...

But a great many States and jurisdictions do not hold their gun owners to the same level of accountability...

Time to put that role on the shoulders of the Federal government, where it belongs in modern times...

To ensure a uniformity of accountability and related processing from coast to coast...

Oh, there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth from some quarters, but it's coming, like it or not...

The challenge is no longer to preserve a status quo that is fast becoming unsustainable on the political front...

The challenge now is to preserve as much as can be preserved by finding a Middle Ground that the majority of both sides can live with...

Piss and moan and bitch all they like, Gun Owners and the NRA are behind the eight ball presently and it's just going to get worse...

Especially after the next reversal of the political "poles" and the election of a Liberal President and House and Senate...

That's coming, too... it's just a matter of when...

Best to hedge your bets and find that Middle Ground now, while you're still in the Driver's Seat, because that's not gonna last forever...

We've reached a Tipping Point, and the next round of Liberal Leadership is going to hem you in much worse, if you don't "deal" now...

For those who can push past your myopia and ancient, crusted-over dogma, and see that inevitable future, and have the sense to act on it...

The choice is yours.

Unfortunately for "liberals", the tactic of censorship and reactionary violence laced with anti-white racism has awakened the smartest and the strongest people in this country to the reality that their is not a single redeemable quality in the inferior Democrat mind.

The next round of Conservative Leadership will simply blow your asses to kingdom come and be done with you because you fucking asked for it.

These weak ass baby boomers responded to your violence and your desire to destroy the western world with compassion and understanding when you deserved nothing but extermination, but karma is coming. You best hope those white South Africans or the oppressed indigenous Europeans don't come to this country to join us.

 

[HappyJoy]

I mean, Jesus Christ people, pull your heads out of your asses and try to make a rational argument. A car is designed for transportation, not to kill.

So to be clear...you couldn’t care any less about human life. Your only concern is for your irrational fear over what you falsely believe is the intent of an object.

No, never said that, your coming to your own conclusions based on whatever is going on between your ears.

Oh but you did sweetie. See, automobiles kill more people every single year. And you’ve never complained about them. Which proves you couldn’t care any less about human life. It’s not about the deaths for you (or you would be all over banning automobiles).

Yeah, you clearly don't have much of a grasp of what I'm saying.

More people interact with cars than they do guns on a daily basis, so it's not surprising at all that we would have more auto deaths. That has absolutely nothing to do with what the basic design of a gun is for. You're just being lazy and throw these two data points together because you think it means something.

Now, auto deaths have come down over the years and due to government interaction as well. Either through regulations (seat belts, auto safety glass, etc.) or anti-drunk diving or anti-texting laws.

Now, the interesting thing is, that even though more Americans interact with cars multiple times per day than guns there isn't that much difference in the number of deaths:

Gun ownership per household overtime has actually gone down, not up as fewer Americans are just buying more guns.

Where as vehicle registrations continue to rise:

So, the trend is more people with more cars are creating fewer automobile deaths.

While Americans who own guns is going down but the firearm deaths is going up.

So, I'm going to continue to type down here though I'm pretty sure you've probably stopped reading. I never once said that automobile deaths are not important or shouldn't be looked at but clearly the numbers are moving in the right direction where now while there are still more auto deaths, it's not much more than guns and more people interact with autos than they do guns.

 

[HappyJoy]

My guns have killed far fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

Technically it was the water that killed someone but who am I to get in the way of a very forced analogy.

And Joy is forced to result to being disingenuous and snarky. Tell us, Joy, what lead to the woman being in the water?

Alcohol?

 

[DrLove]

If the left doesn’t march, petition, lobby, and demand that all automobiles be banned, then they have 0 credibility left.

Three dead as van drives into German crowd

A national with mental health problems? Check.

VERY few want all guns banned. That will never happen.

But amazingly in this country, we register our cars and must past written and physical competency tests to drive one.

And yet, as dumb as your OP is, I've come up with a terrific idea:

Gonna start driving my gun on errands!

 

[tycho1572]

People in Germany will continue seeing these types of attacks until they stop electing liberal politicians.

 

[flacaltenn]

If somebody builds a car whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim, then sure I'm all for banning it.

There has never been a firearm built “whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim”. Never. Not one.

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

So when I use mine for target shooting am I guilty of incorrect firearm usage?

It's practice. Your fire arm wasn't designed for practice.

THat's hysterically funny Dude.. Must be why police departments MANDATE monthly hours of range time.. Right mister defense expert??

And you're a gun engineer also? My My....

 

[westwall]

There has never been a firearm built “whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim”. Never. Not one.

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

That is incorrect. Guns are made to hurl an object along a trajectory. My gun has never killed because that is not its purpose.

Purpose and intent are imparted by people, not inanimate objects.

If you are concerned with the slaughter of people, you will call for the removal and ban of all vehicles.

Purpose and intent is imparted when the gun was designed, regardless of what the owners intent is.

Once again, you are wrong. You imply intent based on nothing more than your opinion. What is the purpose of this rifle I have pictured here?

Looks to be some sort of competitive shooting rifle. If you want to be intellectually dishonest please do. This rifle would be very ineffective for killing, well unless your target agrees to stand still. Anyway, not exactly a weapon that most people have.

How is pointing out that your claim that "ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL", is intellectually dishonest by showing you one that is clearly not. And for the record, this rifle would be extremely deadly if the shooter decided to make it so. And that is the point, it is the person pulling the trigger who sets intent. The designer of the weapon doesn't, the seller, doesn't, it is the SHOOTER who manifests the intent.

 

[HappyJoy]

If somebody builds a car whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim, then sure I'm all for banning it.

There has never been a firearm built “whose entire purpose for existence is solely to kill or maim”. Never. Not one.

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

So when I use mine for target shooting am I guilty of incorrect firearm usage?

It's practice. Your fire arm wasn't designed for practice.

THat's hysterically funny Dude.. Must be why police departments MANDATE monthly hours of range time.. Right mister defense expert??

And you're a gun engineer also? My My....

I think you missed the point. The end purpose of a firearm, especially something our police or military use is not target practice. Target practice is something the gun owner does to become proficient with the weapon. Because the reason that gun exists is to shoot (in this case) humans. Just like a lasso's purpose is to rope a cow, regardless of how much the cowboy practices on the tree stump.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill.

That is incorrect. Guns are made to hurl an object along a trajectory. My gun has never killed because that is not its purpose.

Purpose and intent are imparted by people, not inanimate objects.

If you are concerned with the slaughter of people, you will call for the removal and ban of all vehicles.

Purpose and intent is imparted when the gun was designed, regardless of what the owners intent is.

Once again, you are wrong. You imply intent based on nothing more than your opinion. What is the purpose of this rifle I have pictured here?

Looks to be some sort of competitive shooting rifle. If you want to be intellectually dishonest please do. This rifle would be very ineffective for killing, well unless your target agrees to stand still. Anyway, not exactly a weapon that most people have.

How is pointing out that your claim that "ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL", is intellectually dishonest by showing you one that is clearly not. And for the record, this rifle would be extremely deadly if the shooter decided to make it so. And that is the point, it is the person pulling the trigger who sets intent. The designer of the weapon doesn't, the seller, doesn't, it is the SHOOTER who manifests the intent.

Because you had to go out of your way to pick one of the few guns that is purely designed for target shooting. Kind of like the picture of the flare gun I posted, sure there are some guns not designed to kill but for most gun owners those aren't the type they own. That is where you are being dishonest.

And no when I say a gun is designed to kill by the people who made the gun that does not mean the gun owner can change the design of the gun by mere will. That would be like driving your car into the lake because you think it;s a submarine.

 

[westwall]

That is incorrect. Guns are made to hurl an object along a trajectory. My gun has never killed because that is not its purpose.

Purpose and intent are imparted by people, not inanimate objects.

If you are concerned with the slaughter of people, you will call for the removal and ban of all vehicles.

Purpose and intent is imparted when the gun was designed, regardless of what the owners intent is.

Once again, you are wrong. You imply intent based on nothing more than your opinion. What is the purpose of this rifle I have pictured here?

Looks to be some sort of competitive shooting rifle. If you want to be intellectually dishonest please do. This rifle would be very ineffective for killing, well unless your target agrees to stand still. Anyway, not exactly a weapon that most people have.

How is pointing out that your claim that "ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL", is intellectually dishonest by showing you one that is clearly not. And for the record, this rifle would be extremely deadly if the shooter decided to make it so. And that is the point, it is the person pulling the trigger who sets intent. The designer of the weapon doesn't, the seller, doesn't, it is the SHOOTER who manifests the intent.

Because you had to go out of your way to pick one of the few guns that is purely designed for target shooting. Kind of like the picture of the flare gun I posted, sure there are some guns not designed to kill but for most gun owners those aren't the type they own. That is where you are being dishonest.

And no when I say a gun is designed to kill by the people who made the gun that does not mean the gun owner can change the design of the gun by mere will. That would be like driving your car into the lake because you think it;s a submarine.

You stated that no such thing existed. I proved you wrong with a single photograph. How many photographs of guns do I have to show you till you admit that you lied?

 

[asaratis]

Another Germany Muslim Terror Attack In Münster

The blog you linked is such a piece of garbage

I give the link because of the image of what happen, As usual leftists criticize or joke without any compassion for the victims.

Leftists are masters at dismissing the content because of the source.

 

[HappyJoy]

Purpose and intent is imparted when the gun was designed, regardless of what the owners intent is.

Once again, you are wrong. You imply intent based on nothing more than your opinion. What is the purpose of this rifle I have pictured here?

Looks to be some sort of competitive shooting rifle. If you want to be intellectually dishonest please do. This rifle would be very ineffective for killing, well unless your target agrees to stand still. Anyway, not exactly a weapon that most people have.

How is pointing out that your claim that "ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL", is intellectually dishonest by showing you one that is clearly not. And for the record, this rifle would be extremely deadly if the shooter decided to make it so. And that is the point, it is the person pulling the trigger who sets intent. The designer of the weapon doesn't, the seller, doesn't, it is the SHOOTER who manifests the intent.

Because you had to go out of your way to pick one of the few guns that is purely designed for target shooting. Kind of like the picture of the flare gun I posted, sure there are some guns not designed to kill but for most gun owners those aren't the type they own. That is where you are being dishonest.

And no when I say a gun is designed to kill by the people who made the gun that does not mean the gun owner can change the design of the gun by mere will. That would be like driving your car into the lake because you think it;s a submarine.

You stated that no such thing existed. I proved you wrong with a single photograph. How many photographs of guns do I have to show you till you admit that you lied?

When did I say that no such thing existed? What you're doing is trying to score technical points while ignoring the central premise, guns are designed to kill. Now, if you want an asterisk on the end of that to denote that some guns have other purposes? That's fine, doesn't change my overall argument and you should know this or your being purposefully igno

Purpose and intent is imparted when the gun was designed, regardless of what the owners intent is.

Once again, you are wrong. You imply intent based on nothing more than your opinion. What is the purpose of this rifle I have pictured here?

Looks to be some sort of competitive shooting rifle. If you want to be intellectually dishonest please do. This rifle would be very ineffective for killing, well unless your target agrees to stand still. Anyway, not exactly a weapon that most people have.

How is pointing out that your claim that "ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL", is intellectually dishonest by showing you one that is clearly not. And for the record, this rifle would be extremely deadly if the shooter decided to make it so. And that is the point, it is the person pulling the trigger who sets intent. The designer of the weapon doesn't, the seller, doesn't, it is the SHOOTER who manifests the intent.

Because you had to go out of your way to pick one of the few guns that is purely designed for target shooting. Kind of like the picture of the flare gun I posted, sure there are some guns not designed to kill but for most gun owners those aren't the type they own. That is where you are being dishonest.

And no when I say a gun is designed to kill by the people who made the gun that does not mean the gun owner can change the design of the gun by mere will. That would be like driving your car into the lake because you think it;s a submarine.

You stated that no such thing existed.

No, I did not state that.

I proved you wrong with a single photograph.

Which would make that false.

How many photographs of guns do I have to show you till you admit that you lied?

If your argument is that some guns have purposes other than killing people such as target shooting that's fine, we'd agree there. But the majority of weapons that people own are designed to kill. The sad thing is that it appears many have been brainwashed by the NRA to ignore the obvious. To say guns are designed to kill does not mean the 2nd amendment goes away but it'd be nice if a majority of gun owners understand the purpose for which there firearm was created and to take the responsibility seriously.

I have a Glock, it's not a fucking paperweight.

 

[westwall]

Once again, you are wrong. You imply intent based on nothing more than your opinion. What is the purpose of this rifle I have pictured here?

Looks to be some sort of competitive shooting rifle. If you want to be intellectually dishonest please do. This rifle would be very ineffective for killing, well unless your target agrees to stand still. Anyway, not exactly a weapon that most people have.

How is pointing out that your claim that "ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL", is intellectually dishonest by showing you one that is clearly not. And for the record, this rifle would be extremely deadly if the shooter decided to make it so. And that is the point, it is the person pulling the trigger who sets intent. The designer of the weapon doesn't, the seller, doesn't, it is the SHOOTER who manifests the intent.

Because you had to go out of your way to pick one of the few guns that is purely designed for target shooting. Kind of like the picture of the flare gun I posted, sure there are some guns not designed to kill but for most gun owners those aren't the type they own. That is where you are being dishonest.

And no when I say a gun is designed to kill by the people who made the gun that does not mean the gun owner can change the design of the gun by mere will. That would be like driving your car into the lake because you think it;s a submarine.

You stated that no such thing existed. I proved you wrong with a single photograph. How many photographs of guns do I have to show you till you admit that you lied?

When did I say that no such thing existed? What you're doing is trying to score technical points while ignoring the central premise, guns are designed to kill. Now, if you want an asterisk on the end of that to denote that some guns have other purposes? That's fine, doesn't change my overall argument and you should know this or your being purposefully igno

Once again, you are wrong. You imply intent based on nothing more than your opinion. What is the purpose of this rifle I have pictured here?

Looks to be some sort of competitive shooting rifle. If you want to be intellectually dishonest please do. This rifle would be very ineffective for killing, well unless your target agrees to stand still. Anyway, not exactly a weapon that most people have.

How is pointing out that your claim that "ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL", is intellectually dishonest by showing you one that is clearly not. And for the record, this rifle would be extremely deadly if the shooter decided to make it so. And that is the point, it is the person pulling the trigger who sets intent. The designer of the weapon doesn't, the seller, doesn't, it is the SHOOTER who manifests the intent.

Because you had to go out of your way to pick one of the few guns that is purely designed for target shooting. Kind of like the picture of the flare gun I posted, sure there are some guns not designed to kill but for most gun owners those aren't the type they own. That is where you are being dishonest.

And no when I say a gun is designed to kill by the people who made the gun that does not mean the gun owner can change the design of the gun by mere will. That would be like driving your car into the lake because you think it;s a submarine.

You stated that no such thing existed.

No, I did not state that.

I proved you wrong with a single photograph.

Which would make that false.

How many photographs of guns do I have to show you till you admit that you lied?

If your argument is that some guns have purposes other than killing people such as target shooting that's fine, we'd agree there. But the majority of weapons that people own are designed to kill. The sad thing is that it appears many have been brainwashed by the NRA to ignore the obvious. To say guns are designed to kill does not mean the 2nd amendment goes away but it'd be nice if a majority of gun owners understand the purpose for which there firearm was created and to take the responsibility seriously.

I have a Glock, it's not a fucking paperweight.

I refer you to your post #8 I believe it was.....

"That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill."

You were saying?

 

[HappyJoy]

Looks to be some sort of competitive shooting rifle. If you want to be intellectually dishonest please do. This rifle would be very ineffective for killing, well unless your target agrees to stand still. Anyway, not exactly a weapon that most people have.

How is pointing out that your claim that "ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL", is intellectually dishonest by showing you one that is clearly not. And for the record, this rifle would be extremely deadly if the shooter decided to make it so. And that is the point, it is the person pulling the trigger who sets intent. The designer of the weapon doesn't, the seller, doesn't, it is the SHOOTER who manifests the intent.

Because you had to go out of your way to pick one of the few guns that is purely designed for target shooting. Kind of like the picture of the flare gun I posted, sure there are some guns not designed to kill but for most gun owners those aren't the type they own. That is where you are being dishonest.

And no when I say a gun is designed to kill by the people who made the gun that does not mean the gun owner can change the design of the gun by mere will. That would be like driving your car into the lake because you think it;s a submarine.

You stated that no such thing existed. I proved you wrong with a single photograph. How many photographs of guns do I have to show you till you admit that you lied?

When did I say that no such thing existed? What you're doing is trying to score technical points while ignoring the central premise, guns are designed to kill. Now, if you want an asterisk on the end of that to denote that some guns have other purposes? That's fine, doesn't change my overall argument and you should know this or your being purposefully igno

Looks to be some sort of competitive shooting rifle. If you want to be intellectually dishonest please do. This rifle would be very ineffective for killing, well unless your target agrees to stand still. Anyway, not exactly a weapon that most people have.

How is pointing out that your claim that "ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL", is intellectually dishonest by showing you one that is clearly not. And for the record, this rifle would be extremely deadly if the shooter decided to make it so. And that is the point, it is the person pulling the trigger who sets intent. The designer of the weapon doesn't, the seller, doesn't, it is the SHOOTER who manifests the intent.

Because you had to go out of your way to pick one of the few guns that is purely designed for target shooting. Kind of like the picture of the flare gun I posted, sure there are some guns not designed to kill but for most gun owners those aren't the type they own. That is where you are being dishonest.

And no when I say a gun is designed to kill by the people who made the gun that does not mean the gun owner can change the design of the gun by mere will. That would be like driving your car into the lake because you think it;s a submarine.

You stated that no such thing existed.

No, I did not state that.

I proved you wrong with a single photograph.

Which would make that false.

How many photographs of guns do I have to show you till you admit that you lied?

If your argument is that some guns have purposes other than killing people such as target shooting that's fine, we'd agree there. But the majority of weapons that people own are designed to kill. The sad thing is that it appears many have been brainwashed by the NRA to ignore the obvious. To say guns are designed to kill does not mean the 2nd amendment goes away but it'd be nice if a majority of gun owners understand the purpose for which there firearm was created and to take the responsibility seriously.

I have a Glock, it's not a fucking paperweight.

I refer you to your post #8 I believe it was.....

"That's incorrect. Guns are made to kill, maybe in the name of defense but their purpose is to kill."

You were saying?

This is post #8:

If the left doesn’t march, petition, lobby, and demand that all automobiles be banned, then they have 0 credibility left.

Three dead as van drives into German crowd

Sure, I'm for licensing the owners and registering the vehicles.

Thank you.

Just the same it appears your entire argument is about semantics. Anyway, with my last post I think it's cleared up. We agree some guns have other purposes such as flare guns (which I brought up in another post) and the German marksmen rifle that you posted. There are probably other guns out there for very specific purposes. It's the majority of guns that people in this country actually own is what I'm referring to. So, yeah, you're being intellectually dishonest.