General Discussion

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)

160. I counted four question marks, thus four questions.

Sun Aug 21, 2016, 02:22 PM

Aug 2016

But since you still have not answered my one question, that begs the question of why?

Why do some gun enthusiasts refuse to answer a very simple question about the essential purpose of a gun? This question is not pointless because avoidance and evasion of this purpose makes it far easier for people to carry guns. Stating that "I am carrying for protection" or "what I am doing is lawful carry" are stock phrases that leave out the possible result of that carrying.

What should be said is: "I am carrying for protection and to demonstrate to others that I am willing to kill if I deem it necessary. Say it because it is implicit in the act that you are engaging in. Admit that you are carrying with intent to kill.

As to "trivializing the lives ...etc" I have read numerous responses at DU from gun enthusiasts that try to state that suicide is not a gun homicide. A blatant attempt to trivialize suicide as a way of minimalizing gun deaths.

Again, still waiting for your response as to the essential function of a gun. (Cue Jeopardy waiting theme music)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

182 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Texas Professors Will Learn to Like Guns. Or Else (Bloomberg) [View all] eppur_se_muova Aug 2016 OP

Unless one is a tenured professor I predict a mass exodus of academia from Texas kimbutgar Aug 2016 #1

I can tell you that I wouldn't apply for a job there. a la izquierda Aug 2016 #4

I doubt it. No evidence of lots of faculty leaving in other states that permit guns on campus. aikoaiko Aug 2016 #39

You got that backwards. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #42

tenured professors are the ones with tge grants. drray23 Aug 2016 #165

When Judges, including the SCOTUS, allow guns in the courtroom, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #2

When gun control advocates live by the law then I'll believe they really support Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #3

The wording of the Second Amendment WAS quite clear until Scalia guillaumeb Aug 2016 #15

Do you have any original sources to support your assertion? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #16

It was not an assertion. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #18

That's your interpretation and I believe your interpretation to have no historical basis. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #22

Jesus, that was polite. Better than I could have managed. nt msanthrope Aug 2016 #109

I have been impolite in the past. Impolite beyond excuse. I have to be better than that. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #111

I think the question was sarisataka Aug 2016 #24

Prior to Heller, there was no individual right. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #25

So individuals were prohibited sarisataka Aug 2016 #26

Do you really expect an answer? Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #32

I'm surprised sarisataka Aug 2016 #33

Your questions have no relation to what I said. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #34

So then simply sarisataka Aug 2016 #35

The actual Second Amendment linked keeping and bearing arms guillaumeb Aug 2016 #40

So in short, no sarisataka Aug 2016 #44

An interesting but unoriginal explanation. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #66

Of course it is unoriginal sarisataka Aug 2016 #75

Can you show any federal or state laws limiting gun ownership to militia member? hack89 Aug 2016 #55

Read the Second Amendment prior to Scalia's rewording. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #65

This message was self-deleted by its author hack89 Aug 2016 #68

The only one ignoring any wording, is you. beevul Aug 2016 #56

So there is literally no reason for the words: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #69

Sure there is. You just don't like or agree with it. beevul Aug 2016 #70

You are ignoring the original intent, possibly because guillaumeb Aug 2016 #72

The intent is indeed quite clear...1) it is declared that well-regulated militias are necessary. jmg257 Aug 2016 #78

No, I'm embracing it. beevul Aug 2016 #79

Give it up dude, your getting your ass kicked frankieallen Aug 2016 #162

No, you cannot accept that Scalia invented a right guillaumeb Aug 2016 #164

You are wrong. Again. beevul Aug 2016 #166

You are asserting that no right exists until SCOTUS rules that it does? metalbot Aug 2016 #38

Did you miss the "well regulated" part of the wording? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #41

The 2A clearly says the right belongs to the people. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #47

Interesting that you left out, or forgot, the Constitution and its guillaumeb Aug 2016 #67

"And only a well regulated militia is mentioned in the Second Amendment... " beevul Aug 2016 #71

Where does the militia come from? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #76

Thats a mischaracterization. beevul Aug 2016 #59

When and where has this been enforced? Marengo Aug 2016 #73

A rationale is not the same thing as a limitation. Straw Man Aug 2016 #151

nice analogy! Vattel Aug 2016 #174

When and where has the militia service requirement for possessing a firearm been enforced? Marengo Aug 2016 #167

The requirement is part of the Second Amendment. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #168

When and where was this enforced? When and where was gun ownership only permitted... Marengo Aug 2016 #169

Isn't it clear that every member of governmnet, except for the President who is C in C, jmg257 Aug 2016 #175

I must have missed that lecture in American history. Marengo Aug 2016 #178

The only requirement contained in the second amendment, is a requirement that the gov not infringe.. beevul Aug 2016 #173

When and where was/is this link enforced? When and where were only members of the militia... Marengo Aug 2016 #177

When in our history did we not commonly own guns outside of militia service? hack89 Aug 2016 #53

You have never read Heller, have you? hack89 Aug 2016 #54

Do you expect people to take your post seriously? frankieallen Aug 2016 #161

A well reasoned and balanced response. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #163

Well Done! ProfessorGAC Aug 2016 #5

And Judges. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #19

This message was self-deleted by its author Initech Aug 2016 #6

Criminals aren't allowed to carry a gun on campus or anywhere else. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #8

Many shooters were not criminals until they started shooting. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #21

Many drunk drivers weren't criminals until they started drinking and driving. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #23

Ah, so which do we ban, alcohol or motor vehicles? Marengo Aug 2016 #51

I guess it depends sarisataka Aug 2016 #58

Obviously both since bans are so effective. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #61

Until you get some all knowing pre-crime pre-cognitors.... TipTok Aug 2016 #36

The failed attempt is yours, as usual. pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #98

What has ever kept assholes from "walking into a university with a gun?" Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #12

Actually that is not correct Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #27

I'll just shut up about guns from now on. Initech Aug 2016 #29

Please do not Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #31

+1,000 NT pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #155

It is telling how the. deathrind Aug 2016 #77

Agreed, but let us not forget legislators also. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #80

Very true. deathrind Aug 2016 #81

Good luck, you are debating people who believe George Zimmernan is a responsible gun owner, Hoyt Aug 2016 #108

I believe I read that the Dean of the Architecture College resigned due to this law. redstatebluegirl Aug 2016 #7

You have to be 21 and apply for a permit including extended background check. JonathanRackham Aug 2016 #9

Well, that's a comfort. eppur_se_muova Aug 2016 #17

Which other colleges where this was already allowed, have had problems? N/T beevul Aug 2016 #60

Please have just a little knowledge of the subject law Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #28

Why? Should it be a requirement to knowledge of the facts... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #94

Texas can't be the only place where campus carry is allowed(?), how have other states jmg257 Aug 2016 #10

Guns on campus overview (National Conference of State Legislatures | 31 May 2016) struggle4progress Aug 2016 #11

One of my jobs at UC Santa Barbara was at the police station. No guns for civilians... Hekate Aug 2016 #14

So Utah allows open carry? I never heard a problem at all from this state. yeoman6987 Aug 2016 #30

Mass exodus of qualified academics?;staff members may be stuck ifthe Austin campus is major employer Hekate Aug 2016 #13

Class action suit???? MicaelS Aug 2016 #49

Danger in the workplace, among other things Hekate Aug 2016 #50

This is just sick! smirkymonkey Aug 2016 #20

"Legal Arguments" TipTok Aug 2016 #37

I guess that folks there forgot about Charles Whitman MrScorpio Aug 2016 #43

Are you aware, sarisataka Aug 2016 #45

I am aware. I lived in Austin for a couple of years myself MrScorpio Aug 2016 #46

So actually Whitman is irrelevant sarisataka Aug 2016 #48

Yeah, except for one thing: Paladin Aug 2016 #52

The choice of the date is either sarisataka Aug 2016 #57

I was in Austin that day, listening to KTBC Channel 7. Paladin Aug 2016 #62

Thank you. nt MrScorpio Aug 2016 #63

total gun humper history revision Skittles Aug 2016 #64

They can't be forced to like guns, of course, but they may have to learn to tolerate them. Or quit. WillowTree Aug 2016 #74

And also "tolerate" 30,000 gun deaths a year? The price of freedom? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #82

Do you intend to work this hard to reinstate the prohibition of alcohol? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #84

Alcohol is not "designed" to facilitate mass murder. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #85

Neither are semi-auto civilian legal weapons. beevul Aug 2016 #86

An award for evading and avoiding. But no congratulations are due. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #89

As always, asking the wrong questions, in order to get the wrong answers. beevul Aug 2016 #95

A high mark for evasion and avoidance. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #97

Its only "obvious" to anti-gun idealogues. beevul Aug 2016 #144

Keep those goal posts moving discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #88

Keep up the evasion and "explaining" that a gun is not designed to kill. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #90

Are you less dead when killed with baseball bat than a gun? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #91

As I said, keep up the "explaining" and perhaps you can convince yourself. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #92

Oh I'm convinced already discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #93

I hope that I am convincing the same readers. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #96

I've never worked for a small arms manufacturer discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #101

Have you ever been a politician? If not do you have no right to a political opinion? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #103

I look forward to continuing the discussion but life is calling discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #104

And winning the GOLD Medal for avoidance is.......... guillaumeb Aug 2016 #105

He went over to the safe haven and is complaining Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #107

What are guns designed to do? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #115

Fire a projectile out the barrel of the weapon Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #118

I would suggest rereading the SOP. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #119

Only my military specification bolt action rifles. Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #122

Yes, we both agree that military style weapons are obviously designed for one purpose. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #126

Even self defense is not killing Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #127

Self defense does not always require killing. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #134

I do not think it does Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #137

I am currently blocked from one forum. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #139

You too, have a great night Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #142

You continue to be wrong. Its beginning to look habitual. beevul Aug 2016 #146

"What is the point of firing the projectile?" beevul Aug 2016 #145

Wow, you'd think after winning a gold medal they'd let you make a speech discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #125

First, my apologies. That question was first directed to another poster. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #129

So Olympic firearms are only designed to kill people Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #132

Guns are designed to kill. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #135

apologies unnecessary... seems to be a misunderstanding discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #140

The reference was to the olympic swimmer. Lochte? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #141

"Could your target rifle be used to kill someone?" discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #159

It is refreshing to see respectful Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #130

Bravo... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #133

Insults are pointless. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #136

That is a refreshing view Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #138

Ah yes -- the ever infantile "Guns Are Designed To Kill" "argument". pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #99

If you persist in the nonsense that a gun is not designed to kill, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #100

The assertion that 'guns were designed to kill' was yours discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #102

As I *CLEARLY* stated -- it matters *NOT A BIT* what a gun is designed for. pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #149

Bears repeating......... pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #150

Let's see if you have the character to answer two *very* simple questions. pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #152

I counted four question marks, thus four questions. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #160

I have no problem answering your question, though I doubt you'll respond to mine. pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #170

Speaking of unanswered questions, there are quite a few awaiting for your reply. Marengo Aug 2016 #179

A very apt description. N/T beevul Aug 2016 #147

There are several flaws with your argument. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #110

Since we are pointing out flaws, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #112

British police still possess and employ firearms. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #113

Which does not actually negate anything that I said. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #114

If guns are designed for mass murder why do the police possess them? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #116

My question to you was: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #117

Accurately fire a projectile safely where pointed Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #120

You wrote in Post #85 that guns are designed for mass murder. That means your Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #121

I previously wrote that detachable, large capacity magazines...etc guillaumeb Aug 2016 #123

I am granting your premise for the sake of discussion. It is you who avoids the Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #131

Ouch. beevul Aug 2016 #148

Bravo! NT pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #157

That stings just a bit, lol Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #124

And our question to you is "Why do you ask"? How does your question advance the dialog? pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #153

And our collective answer to you - if I may be so presume to speak for others, is...... pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #154

Why are you trivializing the lives of gun violence victims by asking pointless questions? NT pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #156

Folks have a tendency to ignore unproductive questions. Deal with it. NT pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #171

Is alcohol an Olympic sport? JonathanRackham Aug 2016 #158

May I just comment that this gun culture we have in the United States is fucking nuts. Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #83

Are there any other countries in the world where they have these conversations? HerrKarlMarx Aug 2016 #87

Good news everyone. You all get an A! 6chars Aug 2016 #106

can the headline... bagelsforbreakfast Aug 2016 #128

Well, I am sure we see them all the time Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #143

Do they fear armed staff members that much? ManiacJoe Aug 2016 #172

Glad my last two kids graduated from UT this last May! Dustlawyer Aug 2016 #176

UPDATE: Their virtue signalling has come to naught: friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #180

Makes sense - Courts often defer to the legislative efforts when laws are constitutional. jmg257 Aug 2016 #181

"Or else" what? N/T beevul Aug 2016 #182