School Shooting in Knoxville

#826
#826
OHvol40 said:
I think it’s problem number 15,785 on my priority list... but I think we shouldn’t just let anyone in. I also think we shouldn’t be treating people inhumanly. I think it’s an extremely complex problem that involves people fleeing life threatening situations, cartels that profit from it, drugs, and sovereign nations that either play no role or use it as leverage to gain favor or riches. Why?
Click to expand...


Because people are killed by illegal immigrants every year. Is one American life worth being “humane” to people who are coming here because it’s more convenient? Could we do a lot more to prevent it? People coming to the border with smartphones and designer clothing aren’t having that rough. Regardless they live in a country with a structured government, military, etc.....fix it! There’s nothing complex about it, send them back immediately and let them do it the right way.
 
#827
#827
NorthDallas40 said:
Irrelevant. The “a firearms only purpose is to kill people” broke back implied point has already landed with a resounding thud. An automobile can start itself, drive itself, and run over unintended things.
Click to expand...
My post never suggested "only purpose to kill people". Try again
 
#830
#830
USAFgolferVol said:
My post never suggested "only purpose to kill people". Try again
Click to expand...
Oh sure it did. It’s the end game for “it’s only intent is to kill” because if you considered all of the other things it could “kill” like animals for food, yes animals for trophy (another debate), any variety of other inert object set up to “kill” then you’d see it’s stupid to try and focus on the one possible use, killing other humans, as justification to limit their ownership. Using that logic hammers, knives, and metal pipes would require NICS checks too. Since you know homicide by firearm isn’t the only method of homicide

And we all know this and have been throwing it back in your faces from the first moment this stupid comment was made.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and hog88
#835
#835
Let’s delve into this idiotic line of reasoning about the purpose of firearms and what they were manufactured to do. Let’s say that a guns only purpose is to kill, that’s what it’s designed to do and what it was invented for. Was that any different when the constitution was written and the words “shall not be infringed” were included in the second amendment?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and kiddiedoc
#836
#836
hog88 said:
Let’s delve into this idiotic line of reasoning about the purpose of firearms and what they were manufactured to do. Let’s say that a guns only purpose is to kill, that’s what it’s designed to do and what it was invented for. Was that any different when the constitution was written and the words “shall not be infringed” was included in the second amendment?
Click to expand...
8A68509E-98F5-4461-98EC-C34F74E5C5D3.gif
 
#837
#837
82_VOL_83 said:
And this is another deflection and means absolutely dick when it comes to the discussion you were trying to have.

I see you Looth, you and your ********.
Click to expand...
I was just showing the peanut gallery that banned and restricted are indeed different.
 
#841
#841
NorthDallas40 said:
Nope. That’s just what you want it to mean so you can circumvent the constitution.

infringe
[ in-frinj ]SHOW IPA


See synonyms for: infringe / infringing / infringer on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress:

View attachment 362310
Click to expand...


infringe
verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In

in·fringe | \ in-ˈfrinj \
infringed; infringing
Definition of infringe

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
 
#848
#848
hog88 said:
Let’s delve into this idiotic line of reasoning about the purpose of firearms and what they were manufactured to do. Let’s say that a guns only purpose is to kill, that’s what it’s designed to do and what it was invented for. Was that any different when the constitution was written and the words “shall not be infringed” were included in the second amendment?
Click to expand...

No, back then they were made for hunting...red coats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top