Why does this make me laugh?

Damocles said:
The thing is, the knife does not have to be sharp at the point to be effective as a weapon, and if you stab somebody with a duller blade you will create more damage. It is more difficult to do, but not that much more. The knife is simply skinny enough to be effective as a stabbing instrument regardless of the "safety" point. Shoot you can stab people with fireplace pokers, and they are far less sharp than this knife even with its rounded edge.
Click to expand...
Damo...I have an idea on the same line.....Let's use some American ingenuity. Let's fill up a bunch of plastic bottles with water and sell it in the UK as high flash point lighter fluid? No more having to worry about accidently burning your house down lighting your grill! It's completely safe!!!
 
Mottleydude said:
Damo...I have an idea on the same line.....Let's use some American ingenuity. Let's fill up a bunch of plastic bottles with water and sell it in the UK as high flash point lighter fluid? No more having to worry about accidently burning your house down lighting your grill! It's completely safe!!!
Click to expand...
It would certainly be effective. We'll have to give it a go.
 
Beefy said:
Right.

I'm sure it was a purely thoughtful, logical process behind your equating a dopey cutlery idea with a nanny government that led you to this conclusion.

Okay, soap box. Why is it that only these retards are the ones concerned about the nanny government enough to speak up about dull knives? Some idiot comes along and decides that a dull knife maker = nanny government, when there's a billion other real reasons to think so?

There's plenty of them, but no, some moron steps up and uses the worst example ever.

What??
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7186534.stm
maybe has to do with this
 
uscitizen said:
Nope.

btw if a strict constitutionalist then would guns we can bear would be flintlock rifles, etc that were around at the time of the constitution.
I don't think the founding fathers envisioned Mac 10's and such.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers lived during the Enlightenment. They definitely had a thing for new science and technology, and so to say that strict constructionism is to be technologically backwards is ignorant beyond belief. Who do you think thought it would be cool to name the entire Middle Ages the Dark Ages? (note, today we only refer to the Early Middle Ages of 476-900 as the "Dark Ages," after which things began to pick up).
 
uscitizen said:
Nope.

btw if a strict constitutionalist then would guns we can bear would be flintlock rifles, etc that were around at the time of the constitution.
I don't think the founding fathers envisioned Mac 10's and such.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers would want us armed with guns that would allow us to keep the government working for us not the other way around.
 
uscitizen said:
I long for the invention of good stunner weapons.

We will not need to kill people then.
Click to expand...

They're coming out with tasers that can be shot just like shotguns. I imagine it would probably have even more stopping power than an actual guns; it takes several shots to kill someone with a gun, but you hit someone with a taser, and they're down.
 
Threedee said:
The Founding Fathers lived during the Enlightenment. They definitely had a thing for new science and technology, and so to say that strict constructionism is to be technologically backwards is ignorant beyond belief. Who do you think thought it would be cool to name the entire Middle Ages the Dark Ages? (note, today we only refer to the Early Middle Ages of 476-900 as the "Dark Ages," after which things began to pick up).
Click to expand...

Meh.

I think it will be interesting to see what effect the invention of non-lethal weapons with greater stopping power than guns will have on the world.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what a complete and total idiotic bullshit viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Would the founding fathers have wanted everyone in the world to walk around with an M-14? The arguments you guys use are essentially the same the arguments that the MAD people were using in the cold war; give everyone nukes, and there need not ever be a nuclear war! Of course, if anyone ever did launch a nuke, that would be the end of the world. But let's just ignore that and assume everyone is rational, and that the "good guys" always have the fastest response time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top