When an terrorist explosion made out of a pressure cooker Like the one at the Boston race, it is called a mass Murder. When a terrorist car bomb goes off Like the one in Oklahoma City, it's called a Mass Murder. When a terrorist kill's a bunch of people with chemical or biological agents like they did in japan, they call it a mass murder. When a terrorist kill's a bunch of people with a knife (also in japan, it is called mass murder. When a nut/terrorist kills a bunch of people with a firearm then it is called a Mass Shooting (Can anyone say Political agenda). I wish the government would stop trying to steal our God given Right's, especially the Second Amendment, without this we cannot have or defend the rest of our right's, right's that we enjoy. Instead of trying to outlaw Firearm's they should concentrate on outlawing Pressure Cooker's, Car's, Chemical and Biological Weapons, Bomb's, Knife's, and there are many more item's not mentioned. At least make the owner's of these Weapon's register them, after all these weapon's are not Enumerated in our Bill Of Right's, actually they not even mentioned in our Constitution at all. and they have been proved to be deadly.
The difference between the things you mentioned is the fact that they aren't specifically designed for the purposes you described. Yeah bombs can be made out of ordinary house chemicals but their intended purpose isn't to be mixed together to explode. Same with pressure cookers, hammers, bats, etc. I own a plethora of firearms ranging from black power revolvers to semi-auto rifles and I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and our right to own any and all of those things without restriction. However lets not play semantics and try to kid ourselves. Firearms are designed to kill, sure we use them for plinking most of the time and the stopping power of a firearm will obviously vary greatly depending on load. But they are guns, guns designed to fire a projectile at extremely fast velocities to penetrate things. We often use terminology such as self defense, which is perfectly fine, but when we say self defense we all know we mean kill or wound. Nobody is out there hunting with a DP-12 shotgun, that thing is designed to goof off at the range with and/or kill somebody. I'm not one of those gun owners who plays semantics and tries to be purposefully obtuse to make a point. The argument is always "Guns aren't designed to kill they are simply tools designed to fire a projectile really fast that can kill if you shoot somebody with it". Yeah that's bull and people know it. Yeah something like .22 rimfire could be argued that it's not really designed to kill and it's cheap ammo that people shoot varmints with and go plinking with and doesn't really have THAT much stopping power. But other stuff, yeah that's designed to wound or kill something whether that be an animal or another person. Don't get me wrong, I am 100% in support of that. I support citizens having the right to defend themselves and their property with deadly force regardless of what caliber firearm they choose to use to do that. But when somebody asks me why do I actually NEED an AK-47 I'm not going to give them a fake answer such as it's just a tool. I don't NEED a AK-47 for anything at all, I just like shooting them at stuff at the range. I can justify, from a rational standpoint, why I have Pinesol and Chlorox in my house. I can justify why I have a pressure cooker, or a hammer, or knives. I can't "justify" why I have a variety of semi-auto rifles. The difference is that I don't have to justify why I have them. I have them because I want them and my justification is written in the US Constitution. I can't justify my reasoning for having semi-auto rifles any more than somebody can justify why they own a Corvette.
While it is true that gun's are made to kill, it is also a fact that the founder's of the United States Constitution had just came out of a Revolutionary war with the English, check out the abuse that the English imposed on the colonist back then, they murdered, raped, stole, hanged, shot, burned people alive, confiscated gun's and many other terrible acts. the founder's included our god given right's in the form of the Bill of Right's, the Second Amendment (The right to keep and bear arm's) has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, The Second Amendment has everything to do with giving power to the American people, they did not want America's people to suffer under another corrupt government, for they knew what a corrupt government was capable of.
I agree 100%. My disagreement comes from the discussion about registering other common items that can be used to wound or kill. As I said lets not kid ourselves and with any discussion we have to be honest if we wish to engage in any sort of rational debate. Equating registering pressure cookers with registering firearms because both can be used to kill is ridiculous. I'm not in favor of a gun registration by any means by the way, but I am reasonable enough to admit that the argument being used against registering guns because other things can hurt you too is flawed. A pressure cooker was not designed to put explosive chemicals in it coupled with nuts and bolts and whatever else to create a nasty bomb. It was designed to cook food in. A modern normal hammer was not designed to cave in someones skull, it was designed to drive nails and bang on things. An AK-47 is designed to kill things plain and simple. We can try to spin it all sorts of ways and say that well it's just a tool that can be misused just like the other things but no. We all know, if being honest about the debate, that an AK-47 semi automatic rifle was designed to kill things. So was a a 1911 or pretty much any other firearm we can name. Sure you "can" hunt with these things but lets get real most folks are not out there hunting with .45 ACP fired from a 1911. We used terms such as self defense, yeah well what do we mean by self defense with a 1911? We mean putting a nasty hole into somebody from a .45 ACP if necessary to defend ones self or property. Point is, anything can be used as a deadly weapon but what matters is the intended purpose. A hammer can be used to drive nails and also to kill somebody. I can take the butt of my revolver and hammer nails in with it too but that isn't what it was designed for. I don't play semantics games like that. Sure we can categorize all of these things as mere tools, however, one of them is designed for a specific deadly reason and us gun owners trying to spin that into anything but that reality is a flawed argument to me. All of these things are true and that is perfectly fine. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be allowed to own firearms nor am I arguing that firearms are for hunting only. I'm arguing that firearms are specifically designed for the purpose of being deadly weapons unlike pressure cookers, hammers, steak knives, etc. And YES we should be able to own these deadly weapons designed for the purpose of being deadly weapons. I'm just not going to sit here and try to argue that they aren't designed to be deadly weapons because we all know they actually were.
Actually the statement about registering pressure cooker's and the other's was done in jest ! my point was that anything could be used as a weapon. so I guess we agree mostly. it's the ball bat that need's banning.
