Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[SaltyDawg]

ask Salty to explain it for you.

Not me, I'm not saying a big stick isn't a weapon.

 

[TroutBum]

ask Salty to explain it for you.

I don't have all day to debate the reasons why "Noodle" is or isn't a weapon/swimming pool toy/golf ball/dong/delicious snack. Tempting though.

 

[moevillini]

I don't have all day to debate the reasons why "Noodle" is or isn't a weapon/swimming pool toy/golf ball/dong/delicious snack. Tempting though.

Depends on the sauce. The wrong sauce could ruin it.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

And of course there is the possibility that some people do speak this way, the multiple dictionaries got it right, and your little corner of the world is not representative of everyone.

By the way, armor is a weapon, and a horse can be a weapon too.

My corner of the universe is a good sample size of people that speak English, so is statistically sound. I believe you are intentionally misunderstanding what the people who wrote the definition were trying to say, but were too lazy to define correctly.

Your Mom is a weapon. Armor can be used as a weapon, but it is not a weapon. It's purpose in being created is to defend. A Horse is not a weapon, it is an animal. It may be used as a weapon in some cases, and it's hooves can be used as weapons, but it is still an animal. You are a MORAN! See, my words can be used as a weapon, but they are not inherently a weapon. Your super dense skull is adept at deflecting even the sharpest logic or sense, but your titanium brainframe still is not a weapon. You may use it as a weapon as you bash it against your keyboard to type out your responses, but it in it's pure form is not a weapon. Your stupid smartphone that will soon take over the world, is a weapon. The number of posts on this stupid topic is a toxic weapon to my sanity. I fear if this keeps up I may melt down into a Ute fan of epic proportions. I had better let this useless attempt to "help Salty see reason" die. Maybe the old saying is true, you cant teach old SaltyDawg's new tricks.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Wait, is someone really trying to blend the physical, more denotative meaning of a word and the metaphorical meaning of a word and thus be able to use them interchangeably?


That's high comedy right there.

It's like saying I have a small wardrobe and forced to acknowledge that I don't actually own a wardrobe.

 

[bigb]

Anybody else getting tired of this?

 

[SaltyDawg]

So are you clowns suggesting that if you give a pit bull a gun it will shoot another dog? Or if you give it a club it will use it to beat another dog?

Or is a club not a weapon to a pit bull, and instead they use other things as weapons, that humans probably don't use as weapons?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

So are you clowns suggesting that if you give a pit bull a gun it will shoot another dog? Or if you give it a club it will use it to beat another dog?

Or is a club not a weapon to a pit bull, and instead they use other things as weapons, that humans probably don't use as weapons?

Teeth. But I'm guessing a clown's weapons would be fear, suprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, and a nice red uniform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

 

[SaltyDawg]

Teeth. But I'm guessing a clown's weapons would be fear, suprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, and a nice red uniform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

I guess it comes down to if you think an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would be considered a weapon. I think it would, the dictionary says it would, but the usual trolls on this board are using it as the latest troll material.

 

[LogGrad98]

I guess it comes down to if you think an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would be considered a weapon. I think it would, the dictionary says it would, but the usual trolls on this board are using it as the latest troll material.

The dictionary does not mention invisibility cloaks.

 

[SaltyDawg]

The dictionary does not mention invisibility cloaks.

That doesn't change the fact that weapon was defined the way I thought it was, and an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would fall under that definition.

 

[Agoxlea]

That doesn't change the fact that weapon was defined the way I thought it was, and an invisibility cloak made for soldiers would fall under that definition.

I agree with your general point, but I think you misspoke when you said "weapon". The dictionary defining it that way was pretty damn lucky, and yes that opens the door to the ears maybe being considered a weapon. It is advantageous to a dog while fighting, so who cares if it is a weapon or not. Let it go, and get back to the real issue. If you make the leap that even though TECHNICALLY they can be considered a weapon, they probably shouldn't be, then maybe some people would be willing to take the leap that a higher proportion of people that want aggressive dogs would choose a pitbull making their aggressiveness a self fulfilling prophecy. I agree with that despite the lack of evidence, but I think half a thread discussing the definition of weapon is a waste. Especially since there is now a small glimmer of hope lockout wise.