| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/03/2012 10:01:18 AM · #526 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The Armalite Division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, Costa Mesa, CA was established in 1954 for the sole purpose of developing military firearms using the latest in plastics and non-ferrous materials. |
Originally posted by Flash:
It doesn't matter what Armalite's purpose was. |
Well, yes.......it does. Because no matter how you try to obfuscate its original intent, the weapon was designed and built to shoot people.
Clouding the issue by stating that it is no longer a military weapon does not change its original design and intent.
If you cut the roof off your Chevy, fill it with dirt, and plant flowers in it, that doesn't mean it is no longer a car......it just means that you decided to use your car for a planter. The fact that you think you can tell me I'm clueless simply because this rifle, designed and built to shoot people, didn't make the cut through the quartermaster's and/or GSA offices, doesn't change the facts.
You're missing my point entirely, and I'm not even sure why you're arguing it. It's a fact that it was designed and built as a military weapon by a company whose sole function was to design and build military weapons.
Which part of that are you unclear about? |
Your comparison is poor. The original design of the AR-15 was capable of fully automatic fire (AKA, selective fire) (as has been mentioned many times before). That weapon body shape remains similar today, but the weapon in civilian form (as we see today) is no longer capable of fully automatic fire. So basing your judgement on the current AR-15 by the original design is not accurate, they share body geometry and namesake - but they have been de-featured for civilian use. You seem to keep ignoring that fact.
In an attempt to use your comparison, the original vehicle is capable of driving at 70 mph down the interestate. If you cut the roof off and fill it with dirt, it is no longer capable of such travel. Sure, the body was originally designed to travel at high speeds, but it no longer is capable of that because you have changed the interior. It may still look fast, but it cannot perform the same functions as before. You're essentially judging it solely based on it's looks. |
|
|
|
08/03/2012 10:59:30 AM · #527 |
LMAO I love that comparison...and it is absolutely right. The military version of the m-16 does have a selector switch inorder to fire a 3 round burst....(these are illegal for civillian use by the way) the civillian AR-15 does not have that feature...the rifle makes for a great hunting rifle...but it is no more dangerous than any other semi auto rifle
|
|
|
|
08/03/2012 11:08:16 AM · #528 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The Armalite Division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, Costa Mesa, CA was established in 1954 for the sole purpose of developing military firearms using the latest in plastics and non-ferrous materials. |
Originally posted by Flash:
It doesn't matter what Armalite's purpose was. |
Well, yes.......it does. Because no matter how you try to obfuscate its original intent, the weapon was designed and built to shoot people.
Clouding the issue by stating that it is no longer a military weapon does not change its original design and intent.
If you cut the roof off your Chevy, fill it with dirt, and plant flowers in it, that doesn't mean it is no longer a car......it just means that you decided to use your car for a planter. The fact that you think you can tell me I'm clueless simply because this rifle, designed and built to shoot people, didn't make the cut through the quartermaster's and/or GSA offices, doesn't change the facts.
You're missing my point entirely, and I'm not even sure why you're arguing it. It's a fact that it was designed and built as a military weapon by a company whose sole function was to design and build military weapons.
Which part of that are you unclear about? |
Your comparison is poor. The original design of the AR-15 was capable of fully automatic fire (AKA, selective fire) (as has been mentioned many times before). That weapon body shape remains similar today, but the weapon in civilian form (as we see today) is no longer capable of fully automatic fire. So basing your judgement on the current AR-15 by the original design is not accurate, they share body geometry and namesake - but they have been de-featured for civilian use. You seem to keep ignoring that fact.
In an attempt to use your comparison, the original vehicle is capable of driving at 70 mph down the interestate. If you cut the roof off and fill it with dirt, it is no longer capable of such travel. Sure, the body was originally designed to travel at high speeds, but it no longer is capable of that because you have changed the interior. It may still look fast, but it cannot perform the same functions as before. You're essentially judging it solely based on it's looks. |
Whatever......you guys just keep at it, I give up.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2012 03:33:37 PM · #529 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
LMAO I love that comparison...and it is absolutely right. |
A man sees what he wants to see, And disregards the rest.
Paul Simon
This thread is a fine example of why we don't seem to be able to rationalize our gun policy in America, a vigorous defense of pointless minutia, and an acceptance of the vast harm that comes from the flaws of that policy as the necessary outcome of a free society. I think we could do much better, but am pretty sure many, many, many more people will have to die before we try. |
|
|
|
08/03/2012 04:08:19 PM · #530 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...and an acceptance of the vast harm that comes from the flaws of that policy... |
I think that is one large point of contention. It's not ALL pointless minutia, but it is easy to get stuck on them.
Edited because I'm not the best at putting thoughts into words...
Message edited by author 2012-08-03 16:39:08. |
|
|
|
08/03/2012 04:49:37 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
This thread is a fine example of why we don't seem to be able to rationalize our gun policy in America, a vigorous defense of pointless minutia, and an acceptance of the vast harm that comes from the flaws of that policy as the necessary outcome of a free society. I think we could do much better, but am pretty sure many, many, many more people will have to die before we try. |
Well said...
|
|
|
|
08/11/2012 08:38:53 PM · #532 |
I am extremely excited...I have a japenese arisoka rife on the way
|
|
|
|
08/11/2012 09:32:32 PM · #533 |
"Happiness is a warm gun"
-John Lennon |
|
|
|
08/11/2012 09:48:34 PM · #534 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Happiness is a warm gun"
-John Lennon |
You are absolutely right....Happiness is a warm gun....and I love John Lennon's music
|
|
|
|
08/11/2012 10:24:11 PM · #535 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Happiness is a warm gun"
-John Lennon |
You are absolutely right....Happiness is a warm gun....and I love John Lennon's music |
...and were it not for a "Warm gun", he might still be around and might have produced even more music... but we will never know for sure will we?
Ray |
|
|
|
08/11/2012 10:48:23 PM · #536 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I am extremely excited...I have a japenese arisoka rife on the way |
I assume you mean "Arisaka"? |
|
|
|
08/11/2012 10:54:55 PM · #537 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I am extremely excited...I have a japenese arisoka rife on the way |
I assume you mean "Arisaka"? |
Assuming you are right my friend, he might wish to read This as there does exist some dangers, depending on which of the models he acquired.
I would hate for  cowboy221977 to get injured while playing with his new toy.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/11/2012 11:24:53 PM · #538 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I am extremely excited...I have a japenese arisoka rife on the way |
I assume you mean "Arisaka"? |
Assuming you are right my friend, he might wish to read This as there does exist some dangers, depending on which of the models he acquired.
I would hate for cowboy221977 to get injured while playing with his new toy.
Ray |
my apology...I did misspell the rifle name..... I have a collection of ww2 weapons. My next 2 weapons are an ak-47 and an ar-15
|
|
|
|
08/12/2012 12:02:32 AM · #539 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
my apology...I did misspell the rifle name..... I have a collection of ww2 weapons. My next 2 weapons are an ak-47 and an ar-15 |
I am not too worried about the spelling my friend but rather about the potential danger referred to in the link I provided.
Be careful,
Ray |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 03:09:51 PM · #540 |
Texas a&m shooting
looks like another case of "the spoon making people fat again"
how many of these things before the asinine analogies go away? |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 05:50:43 PM · #541 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Texas a&m shooting
looks like another case of "the spoon making people fat again"
how many of these things before the asinine analogies go away? |
They never will go away simply due to the fact that the analogy that Guns don't kill people is seriously flawed.
I have over the years owned a great variety of firearms, and when left unloaded in a secure environment they have yet to kill or injure anyone as they are incapable of functioning on their own.
When one adds the "People" factor to the equation, the possibility of such an occurrence, even an accidental one is significantly greater.
Cause and effect truly need to be considered when making statements such as this... the ensuing results might be shocking to some.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 06:15:10 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
the analogy that Guns don't kill people is seriously flawed. |
What?!? It's as sensible as saying rockets don't put astronauts in space or hammers don't drive nails. Obviously it's people that do those things, not the tools specifically designed for the task. |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 06:21:47 PM · #543 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
the analogy that Guns don't kill people is seriously flawed. |
What?!? It's as sensible as saying rockets don't put astronauts in space or hammers don't drive nails. Obviously it's people that do those things, not the tools specifically designed for the task. |
Guns are NOT designed to be used to massacre people. Argue whatever you will, that is not their intended purpose.
Much the same that airplanes and cars are not created to smash people to death...
Frankly, in the scheme of things, we could do with fewer cars, airplanes, guns and humans, but the least of my concerns on that list is "guns"... |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 06:51:02 PM · #544 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
the analogy that Guns don't kill people is seriously flawed. |
What?!? It's as sensible as saying rockets don't put astronauts in space or hammers don't drive nails. Obviously it's people that do those things, not the tools specifically designed for the task. |
Guns are NOT designed to be used to massacre people. Argue whatever you will, that is not their intended purpose... |
...and what exactly is their purpose then.
In wars they are used to maim and kill... In hunting they are used to kill... in the police environment they are used as a last resort with the objective to incapacitate your foe... used by the criminal element they often result in death.
Other than target practice, what other use do weapons have if not to kill or maim.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 07:21:10 PM · #545 |
| They are used to protect yourself and your loved ones, one of your basic responsibilities. You cannot expect anyone else to do this for you. |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 08:08:42 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
They are used to protect yourself and your loved ones, one of your basic responsibilities. You cannot expect anyone else to do this for you. |
I really would not want to rain on your parade my friend, but I have managed to protect myself, my family and assumed the guardianship of some small communities all by myself and without the need to carry any form of weapon.
I spent 30+ years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and was called upon to provide services ranging from patrolling the streets to protecting dignitaries and Heads of States and am all too familiar with the concept of providing protection. Yes in these instances I did carry weapons and was quite prepared to use them.
I would wager good money that most people, when confronted by someone with a gun would probably either piss themselves or air condition their houses with a myriad of bullet holes.
You never did answer my question - Other than to maim and kill what other uses do guns have.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-08-13 20:09:40. |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 08:33:06 PM · #547 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by David Ey:
They are used to protect yourself and your loved ones, one of your basic responsibilities. You cannot expect anyone else to do this for you. |
I really would not want to rain on your parade my friend, but I have managed to protect myself, my family and assumed the guardianship of some small communities all by myself and without the need to carry any form of weapon.
I spent 30+ years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and was called upon to provide services ranging from patrolling the streets to protecting dignitaries and Heads of States and am all too familiar with the concept of providing protection. Yes in these instances I did carry weapons and was quite prepared to use them.
I would wager good money that most people, when confronted by someone with a gun would probably either piss themselves or air condition their houses with a myriad of bullet holes.
You never did answer my question - Other than to maim and kill what other uses do guns have.
Ray |
You, having owned guns surely should already know the answers to this.
And I said massacre humans, not maim and kill.
Frankly, there are weapons made to kill large numbers of humans, guns aren't that weapon though, especially the ones that are readily available to civilians.
ETA: Honestly, if I wanted to kill a bunch of folks, a gun would be pretty far down the list of tools I'd choose.
Message edited by author 2012-08-13 20:34:42. |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 08:40:38 PM · #548 |
Originally posted by Cory:
And I said massacre humans, not maim and kill.
Frankly, there are weapons made to kill large numbers of humans, guns aren't that weapon though, especially the ones that are readily available to civilians. |
The phrase at issue is not, "Guns don't massacre humans." Guns were invented to kill things, one of the main things being people. |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 08:42:30 PM · #549 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
And I said massacre humans, not maim and kill.
Frankly, there are weapons made to kill large numbers of humans, guns aren't that weapon though, especially the ones that are readily available to civilians. |
The phrase at issue is not, "Guns don't massacre humans." Guns were invented to kill things, one of the main things being people. |
No argument from me on that score. Although, there are a myriad of other choices that will work equally as well, if not better, for humans... Guns really are better used on animals and targets IMO. |
|
|
|
08/13/2012 08:44:27 PM · #550 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Other than to maim and kill what other uses do guns have.
Ray |
Well, they do litter the landscape with bits of lead, helping get rid of those pesky condors faster ... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/19/2025 01:29:08 PM EDT.
