iivan740
Well-Known Member
hanimmal I do not know, but when I was young I was allowed to shoot when I could pick the gun up, aim at the target, and pull the trigger unassisted. 
That's my dad clapping. You know I never had a toy gun when I was young, kinda strange now that I think about it. Funny thing is I have no desire to even own a gun now, I just think that noone should take my right own one.
shnkrmn Is a nuclear weapon more threatening or terroristic than a knife?
No, however it is more threatening when armed and fired than a knife in someones hand swinging around.
shnkrmn NoDrama used the term brandish, I was repeating it. There is a difference between packing heat and 'brandishing' a weapon.
You are absolutely correct and I sincerely apologize.
shnkrmn I don't recall firearms being used in warfare throughout history. The battle of kurukshetra may have turned out differently.
Think of it as a progressive statement. Weapons will continue to be improved upon. Like first came hitting and kicking, then someone picket up a rock, and so someone picked up a bigger rock, and the cycle began more or less.
shnkrmn Anyway, a legitimate battlefield weapon (whatever that means, what is not legitimate?) does not belong at a political rally.
Ever.
definition of a weapon : A weapon is a tool used to apply or threaten to apply force for the purpose of hunting, attack or defense in combat.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon
As per the definition just about anything could be a legitimate weapon.
And now you tell me weapons have no place at a political rally, ugh do you mean on the citizen side or did you mean everyone?
Last time I went to the armory a .45 semi auto pistol was standard military issue, and i'm pretty sure the secret service and local law enforcement has at least one at the political rallies. So what do you mean by this? Everyone or just civilians?
That's my dad clapping. You know I never had a toy gun when I was young, kinda strange now that I think about it. Funny thing is I have no desire to even own a gun now, I just think that noone should take my right own one.shnkrmn Is a nuclear weapon more threatening or terroristic than a knife?
No, however it is more threatening when armed and fired than a knife in someones hand swinging around.
shnkrmn NoDrama used the term brandish, I was repeating it. There is a difference between packing heat and 'brandishing' a weapon.
You are absolutely correct and I sincerely apologize.
shnkrmn I don't recall firearms being used in warfare throughout history. The battle of kurukshetra may have turned out differently.
Think of it as a progressive statement. Weapons will continue to be improved upon. Like first came hitting and kicking, then someone picket up a rock, and so someone picked up a bigger rock, and the cycle began more or less.
shnkrmn Anyway, a legitimate battlefield weapon (whatever that means, what is not legitimate?) does not belong at a political rally.
Ever.
definition of a weapon : A weapon is a tool used to apply or threaten to apply force for the purpose of hunting, attack or defense in combat.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon
As per the definition just about anything could be a legitimate weapon.
And now you tell me weapons have no place at a political rally, ugh do you mean on the citizen side or did you mean everyone?
Last time I went to the armory a .45 semi auto pistol was standard military issue, and i'm pretty sure the secret service and local law enforcement has at least one at the political rallies. So what do you mean by this? Everyone or just civilians?
