Interesting philosophical debate. Is it not for whatever I’m using it for, regardless of its designated purpose? If I have a lighter, and someone asks “what’s that thing for,” and I answer “lighting candles,” am I wrong because the bic was designed with tobacco smokers in mind? Would I have to have answered “to expend and ignite butane” to be correct? If I have a bottle of booze and someone asks what for, am I wrong if I say “Tom’s party” instead of “consumption and subsequent expellation?” I say that butter knife is “for opening paint cans.”
Also, do you have a designated poop paint knife, or do you use a random one every time? If it is designated I’d argue that is yet another reason to say it is for opening paint cans.
The fact that I have found an alternative purpose for the butter-knife does not satisfy this phrasing from the comment you replied to:
each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible
My butter-knife was designed to cut and spread soft food that does not require anything sharper to work with. Those guns are designed and marketed to kill.
By the way, I’m not anti-2A nor anti gun. But I am anti-deflection, among other things. An AR-15 is designed to kill people. Pretending it’s not doesn’t strengthen your position, it makes your argument seem disingenuous.
Oh well my actual argument is “some people need killin’ it’s called self defense.” But I’m more interested in if things are “for” something other than their designation if they’re being used for it and are now designated for it by it’s actual end user.
For sure no problem. I’m definitely a proponent of the right to self defense, but also a proponent of imbibing on whatever substances please you so long as you don’t hurt others. Substances which may or may not make one interested in pondering on things like fate even concerning inanimate objects, I suppose.
An AR-15 is a completely modular rifle platform so that you can build it for your needs. Of which yes, building one for killing people is one. But it is definitely not the only one.
Interesting philosophical debate. Is it not for whatever I’m using it for, regardless of its designated purpose? If I have a lighter, and someone asks “what’s that thing for,” and I answer “lighting candles,” am I wrong because the bic was designed with tobacco smokers in mind? Would I have to have answered “to expend and ignite butane” to be correct? If I have a bottle of booze and someone asks what for, am I wrong if I say “Tom’s party” instead of “consumption and subsequent expellation?” I say that butter knife is “for opening paint cans.”
Also, do you have a designated
pooppaint knife, or do you use a random one every time? If it is designated I’d argue that is yet another reason to say it is for opening paint cans.The fact that I have found an alternative purpose for the butter-knife does not satisfy this phrasing from the comment you replied to:
My butter-knife was designed to cut and spread soft food that does not require anything sharper to work with. Those guns are designed and marketed to kill.
By the way, I’m not anti-2A nor anti gun. But I am anti-deflection, among other things. An AR-15 is designed to kill people. Pretending it’s not doesn’t strengthen your position, it makes your argument seem disingenuous.
Oh well my actual argument is “some people need killin’ it’s called self defense.” But I’m more interested in if things are “for” something other than their designation if they’re being used for it and are now designated for it by it’s actual end user.
Thanks for your honesty.
For sure no problem. I’m definitely a proponent of the right to self defense, but also a proponent of imbibing on whatever substances please you so long as you don’t hurt others. Substances which may or may not make one interested in pondering on things like fate even concerning inanimate objects, I suppose.
An AR-15 is a completely modular rifle platform so that you can build it for your needs. Of which yes, building one for killing people is one. But it is definitely not the only one.