I'm not a vegetarian or a Jainist. I'm also not a cannibal either. If you find human flesh tempting in that way I'd recommend you find professional help.
Didn't we have a multi-page discussion a week ago in this thread about what the Second Amendment says, what it means, DC v. Heller (the Supreme Court interpreting it), prefatory clauses versus operative clauses, why that interpretation does or does not make sense to various posters, etc?
Per research well regulated means well schooled and trained not limited.
The idea was all able bodied men to get together and train informally in case they should be called upon. To help defend the state be it from foreign attack or use in law enforcement or any domestic situation they could be required to come to the aid of the people.
There is absolutely nothing in my post that would lead someone to make the boldfaced statement. That's absurd, inflaofftopictory, and not what I was talking about. You're just deliberately trolling now. This is ridiculous.
My point was YES, guns were designed to kill, but NO, they were not designed to murder innocent people. Not all killing--of people or of animals--is murder. Guns were not designed specifically to murder. I thought that point was pretty clearly made.
Well, yes.
Actually, I've never known the NRA, or any lesser gun organization, to say otherwise. There are NRA-approved and even NRA-sponsored training classes everywhere.
You go from talking about killing innocent people and children to talking about dietary habits and how killing people isn't wrong. And still you're making that point. You are happy to kill people.
The original purpose of the gun so far as I'm aware is to kill. So long as guns have existed they have been used to kill people. Innocent or otherwise.
Well look at that! I should have connected the dots. Clearly wearing Tapout and Cannibalism are related, since they are two abhorrent social behaviors. Why did this escape me?