The 2nd Amendment

[Chief Joseph]

 " Of course, it also begs the question, if it would have been just as easy for Holmes to blow up the theater, thus yielding a potentially higher casualty rate, which no doubt would have been a good thing in his view, then why didn't he?"

Your entire argument became faulty when you based it on the assumption that casualty rate was the goal.

[Chief Joseph]

 "Using those same materials,"

The preemptive false dichotomy. Nice.

[Chief Joseph]

It's difficult to fathom your inability to see what you're doing here with your repeated efforts to apply false qualifiers. You're trying to manipulate known information so that it fits your preconceived conclusions. Why would he be limited to using the same materials? ...because that scenario fits your conclusions.

[Biggs3535]

The 2nd amendment was not created to grant the ability to rebel. It was created as a plan for addressing national security. There is countless text and events that support this, and you and your crowd have continuously ignored them in order to cling to an unsubstantiated fantasy.

Great Odin's Raven, I never tire of re-writing history by the libs.  It's glorious.

[CBWx2]

 " Of course, it also begs the question, if it would have been just as easy for Holmes to blow up the theater, thus yielding a potentially higher casualty rate, which no doubt would have been a good thing in his view, then why didn't he?"

Your entire argument became faulty when you based it on the assumption that casualty rate was the goal.

I don't have to assume anything. The facts are as they are, and they support this basic truth; bombs are used to take down buildings and guns are used to take down people. In the Holmes scenario, the apartment bomb was created to blow up the building to create a diversion. The Guns were used to target the people that he wanted eliminated, the one's at the movie theater.

[Chief Joseph]

As you are perhaps unaware, I feel it only fair to inform you that when you take down a building the people in it may perish.

[CBWx2]

It's difficult to fathom your inability to see what you're doing here with your repeated efforts to apply false qualifiers. You're trying to manipulate known information so that it fits your preconceived conclusions. Why would he be limited to using the same materials? ...because that scenario fits your conclusions.

You still have failed to answer the question of if it would have been just as easy to blow up the movie theater, then why didn't he? You are tap dancing around this question because I'm sure you are aware that there is no answer that you can give that maintains the sanctity of your position.

What's interesting is that you are accusing me of making assumptions when the entire premise of your position has been based on an assumption. The assumption that anyone intent on committing a mass killing would be just as inclined to do so using explosives as he would using firearms.

[CBWx2]

As you are perhaps unaware, I feel it only fair to inform you that when you take down a building the people in it may perish.

And if your only desire was to see people perish, then a gun would be a much more efficient way to see this come to fruition.

[Chief Joseph]

Oh sweet Jesus, you are an idiot. The easiest way of turning chemical energy into mechanical energy is to add some projectiles. If the back of a theater seat does not achieve this end, a can of nails will. You'd better buy some soon though, they'll probably be banned before long.

[Lord Freesus]

In the 1700s, "arms" were muskets that fired 3 inaccurate rounds a minute.

I doubt the founding fathers ever imagined we'd have machines capable of so much destruction.

[Chief Joseph]

The CBW Dichotomy Grenade - either brings the entire building down or leaves everyone unharmed.

[CBWx2]

If it would have been just as easy to blow up the theater as it was to shoot up the theater, then why didn't he, Luminous?

[Chief Joseph]

 " You still have failed to answer the question of if it would have been just as easy to blow up the movie theater, then why didn't he? You are tap dancing around this question because I'm sure you are aware that there is no answer that you can give that maintains the sanctity of your position."

So now the reasoning of a psychotic lunatic has to support my arguments or they're not valid? A refreshing change from your false dichotomy approach, but in no way an improvement.

[CBWx2]

In the 1700s, "arms" were muskets that fired 3 inaccurate rounds a minute.

I doubt the founding fathers ever imagined we'd have machines capable of so much destruction.

What's even more funny about that is that the weapons of mass destruction of the time, canons and mortars, were deemed illegal to be in the possession of private citizens. Perhaps the founders didn't think that those weapons would be of any use to a rebel army.

[Chief Joseph]

 
" If it would have been just as easy to blow up the theater as it was to shoot up the theater, then why didn't he, Luminous?"

Possibly because he was mentally ill? Call it a hunch.