why that was nice

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

You kept using it as a hypothetical, conceding it could happen, when in reality it didhappen.
I figured since you wanted to point out my "mistake" (obviously made to quickly prove a point), i would point out your obvious error made several times without even the realization.

A British army is quite different then an arsonist.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

you don't know much about fire science do you. Not to mention that the gunpowder had already exploded, which caused the fire to spray up, which separated it from it's source, which caused it to go out. Without anything for it to burn, it can't continue. It lost all it's fuel.
I'm not saying it was terribly effective, I'm just saying they had one. We are talking in the early 1700's here.

Come on.

You might have proven that one existed, but certainly not that they had one.

 

[kickerlivinloud 10+ year member]

So if this is used as the basis for the argument against gun control, why cant this argument be expanded to include all weaponry?
I want to own some biological weapons and poison gases and i think my right should be respected.

The stupidity of this question is too much for me!! Only purpose for this question is to cause controversy. Anyone with a little bit of common sense knows full well what the 2nd amendment is meant for. You can twist anything (and law) to mean whatever you want.

Faulkton, you are a very well educated person. This is quite evident as most of your threads are very well worded and well made in your favor. However being educated does not mean you are "smart" or have "common sense". I'm not insulting your intelligence but, some times the stuff you come up with really blows my mind.

I know the only reason for most of your stuff is to stir up trouble and have fun getting some people panties in a bunch. Nothing wrong with that, its fun to see people get so pissed off over things that are said on the internet. I've noticed you claim to have "Conservative" views but almost all of your threads always seem to float on the "Liberal" side. Out of curiousity what do you consider your self to be? Conservative or Liberal??

Also the "Right to bear arms" from my understand means the right to bear a "personal arm" ie; firearm (gun). Poison gas, chemical weapons, etc are considered weapons of mass destruction. They were designed for the sole and only purpose of mass killing of people, were as fire arms are used mostly for sport (hunting, target) along with weapons of war or crime.

That is of course my view on what is meant by the 2nd amendment. I feel that it is an accurate view, and that is how our Founding Fathers meant for it to be understood.

Jon

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

A British army is quite different then an arsonist.

And that is relevant to the discussion in what way?

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

You might have proven that one existed, but certainly not that they had one.

Sorry, I meant that they did in fact exist at that time. Whether or not they had one though, is something I don't know.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

The stupidity of this question is to much for me!! Only purpose for this question is to cause controversy. Anyone with a little bit of common sense knows full well what the 2nd amendment is meant for. You can twist anything (and law) to mean whatever you want.
Faulkton, you are a very well educated person. This is quite evident as most of your threads are very well worded and well made in your favor. However being educated does not mean you are "smart" or have "common sense". I'm not insulting your intelligence but, some times the stuff you come up with really blows my mind.

I know the only reason for most of your stuff is to stir up trouble and have fun getting some people panties in a bunch. Nothing wrong with that, its fun to see people get so pissed off over things that are said on the internet. I've noticed you claim to have "Conservative" views but almost all of your threads always seem to float on the "Liberal" side. Out of curiousity what do you consider your self to be? Conservative or Liberal??

Also the "Right to bear arms" from my understand means the right to bear a "personal arm" ie; firearm (gun). Poison gas, chemical weapons, etc are considered weapons of mass destruction. They were designed for the sole and only purpose of mass killing of people, were as fire arms are used mostly for sport (hunting, target) along with weapons of war or crime.

That is of course my view on what is meant by the 2nd amendment. I feel that it is an accurate view, and that is how our Founding Fathers meant for it to be understood.

Jon

loL.

Guess where i stopped reading?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

And that is relevant to the discussion in what way?

you originally said an arsonist could have lit in on fire and said that maybe we should ban fire, and then said that it did in fact happen, however it was lit of fire by part of a British army, not a crazed lunatic.

 

[kickerlivinloud 10+ year member]

loL.
Guess where i stopped reading?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Let me guess, you never make errors in your grammar?????//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

Jon

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

Let me guess, you never make errors in your grammar?????//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif





Jon

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

loL

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

you originally said an arsonist could have lit in on fire and said that maybe we should ban fire, and then said that it did in fact happen, however it was lit of fire by part of a British army, not a crazed lunatic.

That is inaccurate.

I never said an arsonist burned the White house down, I said that the White House did in fact burn down.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

An arsonist could have purposely burned it down.

Should we ban fire?

it happened, it wasn't an arsonist, and nuclear weapons are worse then fire.

Thats all i am going to say.

edit: i said you said an arsonist could have lit in on fire.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Let me guess, you never make errors in your grammar?????//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif





Jon

I make errors grammatical errors all the time, and i would suspect you could find at least two dozen of them in this thread alone, but i try not to make them when i call someone stupid.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Proof ^^

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

besides, do you really think i stopped reading?

loL.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

it happened, it wasn't an arsonist, and nuclear weapons are worse then fire.
Thats all i am going to say.

edit: i said you said an arsonist could have lit in on fire.

Ok.

glad i could help you see the truth.