Recently acquired a Legion Go.
Search
Search results: 11,202 found, showing up to 50
I don't even have a roommate where I am at. Things are little different with officersSuperJail Warden wrote:
That's why the military is a homo summer camp that never ends. All of the soldiers are runaways who couldn't man up and tell their parents they are gay. So they ran away to join the military to have an excuse to never marry a woman.
Show your barrack buddies a picture of my Louis Vuitton wallet. It would buy you street cred with the secret gays.
Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't exist anymore, you can be openly gay in the Army and no one will give a fuck.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Nothing is stopping you from posting your stories about hanging out in the homo barracks with the other runaways and closet cases.
Hey Macbeth, can you just make a thread where he posts all these stories instead of posting here or EE Chats? "The Macbeth Life"
I think he means December 26Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats literally three years away, worry about it then.SuperJail Warden wrote:
To top all of this off, the court date is 12/26. It messes with my holiday plans.
You should be thankful they didn't taze you and shoot you, if you'd looked at them funny they'd have been within their rights.
Yes, Benellis, Beretta, Franchis like Spas-12 (kind of 15, there was a period of importation ban), various American brands, etc.SuperJail Warden wrote:
When the Street Sweaper was made were there commercially available semiautomatic shotguns in the U.S.?
Gun stores and the like are fine.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Should they be sold in supermarkets next to the liquor case? Urban Warfare Party Pack and Confetti Flashbang.
Donate to the food drive and get 30% off your next 30-round banana clip (1 per household).
I can acquire a binary trigger for an ar-15 with no issue with no registered or fee to pay, sort of doubling the rate of fire of my ar-15 if I want. However, a suppressor which quiets the weapon a little ( does not get rid of the sonic boom ) , but happens to reduce the muzzle velocity of the projectiles somehow requires being registered and a fee paid for.
One reason I am against gun regulations is because of inconsistency of restrictions and general ignorance firearms in general.
Take the Street Sweeper shotgun in late 80's , early 90's
It is considered a destructive device despite not really being good and reloading is slow as you have to individualyl load shells. Capacity is 10 rounds. Meanwhile I can acquire a saiga semi auto with a detachable drum that can hold 30 rounds and that is perfectly fine and legal, nevermind the greater destruction I can potentially cause with the saiga, yet the Street Sweeper is a destructive device under the NFA. Can you explain why? It makes no sense.
It's the tax stamp and having to wait for approval just for an attachment for a firearm that is what I am getting at.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Currently legal in 40+ states."War Man wrote:
While at it, can suppressors not be an NFA item so people can be able to purchase them for the sake of preserving hearing? They aren't as silent as movies and videogames depict them.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/conten … suppressor
https://www.silencershop.com/blog/post/ … suppressor
https://www.silencershop.com/blog/post/ … s-by-state
Do you live in a state where they're not allowed? Are you a Prohibited Person? What reason(s) should we abolish firearms regulations for?
Short of just banning the things altogether, imo weapons laws should be comprehensive, with well-defined motive and terminology, easy to understand, and easy to follow from municipality to municipality. There should be no confusion or room to dispute definitions.
I don't seem to have issues with ads on youtube with my adblock. But now there is the cookies pop up where I can choose to accept or reject.
While at it, can suppressors not be an NFA item so people can be able to purchase them for the sake of preserving hearing? They aren't as silent as movies and videogames depict them.
Are you trolling? Maybe you should watch the movie and it will make you realize how dumb that comment you made is.Dilbert_X wrote:
Guardians of the Galaxy 3 2/10
I haven't seen it, but apparently Gamora is not in it.
Literally the whole point of the GotG films is Zoe Saldana being sulky.
Should have called it G____i__s __ t__ _a___x_ 3
Also why would you rate a movie because it is missing an attractive actress (which it is not)?
i'm hesitant to upgrade to windows 11 because I worry how much RAM it consumes.
Let's not forget that the NFA was originally intended for handguns, but politicians saw SBR's and SBS's as a loophole so they added that to the to the NFA. However, realizing that there would be a lot of backlash politicians removed handguns from NFA, but still kept SBR's and SBS's in the NFA.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I do think that the focus on semi-auto rifles in reporting distracts from the numeric and still utterly lethal threat of handguns. A convenient sink for legislative pressure, going after a specific "style" of gun to briefly mollify the gun control public and exchange a few impotent back pats.
I've been to gun shows, they require background checks. It's a myth you can get a gun at a gun show without background checks.
Edit: Also ar-15's mass shootings statistics are exaggerated. Hell, Virginia Tech shooter used glocks.
Edit: Also ar-15's mass shootings statistics are exaggerated. Hell, Virginia Tech shooter used glocks.
it's always funny coming across a southerner that is all macho until it gets to the 60's F and hearing him bitch about how it's " fucking cold ". Southerners are such babies when it comes to their " winter "
I thought macbeth was in Hufflepuffunnamednewbie13 wrote:
That will be 5 points from Gryffindor, Mr. Macbeth.
Not necessarily.twoblacklines wrote:
Everyone literally has the same path in life...wife..kids.. so boring
If you want to live in a city fine. I prefer to live in an area with cleaner air, less expensive, less noise except for the occasional local farmer shooting his gun(which I have no problems with, I find gunfire at a distance to be a calming noise for me), and also a less of a target for terrorists to bomb. go enjoy the city it's not for me.
If there weren't any Romans (referring to all citizens of the Roman Empire/Republic) living in rural areas they would've died by starvation. There were Roman farmers, and there were Romans hunting as well. Hunting is a long tradition that has existed for as long as humanity, even with urbanization civilization still hunted.SuperJail Warden wrote:
You shouldn't live in a rural area at all. The Romans were literally the height of civilization and they weren't living in the woods.
There was no deer problem in ancient Rome.
Yeah well, rural areas don't have that option, they can overpopulate and cause havoc if not taken control of.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Society would need to collapse before deer blocked the entrance to JFK.
And for the record, not really hunting for pleasure hunting because it provides other meats I generally wouldn't be able to get at a store. I have never seen venison or oryx available at stores, only option is hunting. Of course if the price of turkey gets expensive, I also have an alternative option to save money.
I never killed a wolf, I generally would leave them alone unless they were bothering me or others.RTHKI wrote:
no shit you killed all the wolves
Plenty of wolves around still anyway.
Just saying if you are traveling and come across a bunch a deer on a road or even airport, don't come crying to me.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Do I look like I live in a place that has a deer problem?
Yeah, I know.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
General reminder to warman to pay attention to hunting laws.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/19/us/j … index.html
oof
Don't come crying to me when there ends up being too many damn deer getting in roads and causing car accidents. Wolves and other predators can only do so much in hunting, hunters help keep the population down.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Lame ass rural people with a stupid hobby. I don't care it is their culture. It is no better than FGM.
Wtf?
Well the safety thing is a minor reason that barely registers for me wanting a truck. People who drive in a smaller car tend to suffer more injuries in an accident than those who drive a larger vehicle due to mass differences, it isn't always the case of course but there is truth to it where mass and size makes a difference.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I feel like I should point out that you're not necessarily safer in a truck just because it's a truck. Check out the reports ofc.
A station wagon? I haven't seen those relics in decades and also dead animal in car = dead animal. Pickup is way to goNyte wrote:
Buy a wagon for cheap and tow it with your existing car.
I prefer not to rely on borrowing, besides having a truck of my own gives me more experience which leads to me being more comfortable driving larger vehicles. Borrowing from a friend would not help me get comfortable driving larger vehicles. There is always the chance I may have to drive a humvee someday, and I know I would not be comfortable driving one right now. There have been moments where I drove a short distance with a van or truck once or twice and I was constantly nervous driving them due to being inexperience driving a larger vehicle and also a vehicle I do not own. Having a truck of my own will allow me to get past that discomfort.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Do you have any friends with trucks instead of buying a new one?
YesRTHKI wrote:
thing is truck drivers usually are the assholes
Well if I am hunting, I got to transport the animal in something don't I? I literally said I don't want dead animal smell in the vehicle so truck is the way to go. So of course I would get the truck first before hunting.SuperJail Warden wrote:
You want to get into hunting? So you don't hunt but want to buy a truck first? Huh?War Man wrote:
I want something off road capable and I want to get into hunting and not have dead animal smell in my car. So a vehicle with a pickup bed that I can easily just wash off is appealing.RTHKI wrote:
maybe dont get a truck
Plus with asshole drivers, I am better protected in a truck than I am in a car if I do get in an accident.
Yeah, fuck big stuffNyte wrote:
I hate big ass computer cases with those big ass ATX motherboards.
I got myself an ITX motherboard inside an SFFPC case and it saved me so much space. I also had to get a smaller computer to under-compensate for my huge ass dick. All things balanced, as they should be.
I want something off road capable and I want to get into hunting and not have dead animal smell in my car. So a vehicle with a pickup bed that I can easily just wash off is appealing.RTHKI wrote:
maybe dont get a truck
Plus with asshole drivers, I am better protected in a truck than I am in a car if I do get in an accident.
Fricken chip shortage leads to markups especially trucks. The most practical truck option for me(and about the same or more fuel efficient than my sedan, even the Maverick with regular gas engine and AWD) the Ford Maverick is almost impossible to get or marked up so high it costs 150% of its MSRP
So I am stuck with midsize trucks as options that are less fuel efficient than a compact truck would be, but even those are marked up. Fricken annoying.
So I am stuck with midsize trucks as options that are less fuel efficient than a compact truck would be, but even those are marked up. Fricken annoying.
I see a missed nothing
I am well aware of Russia unofficially fighting the war, I was referring to official.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This particular war has been going on since 2014. Look up the timeline of the frozen conflict.
"God Emperor" in reference to Warhammer 40k(which is likely in reference to the Roman Emperor)uziq wrote:
the world doesn’t revolve around your beloved trump. there are multiple bot nets active on twitter pursuing multiple disinformation aims.War Man wrote:
Oh God with the Russian bot bullshit. Seriously? If Trump was working with Russia, why didn't Russia invade Ukraine sooner?uziq wrote:
i literally love that he took it over saying it was going to become a beacon of free speech (read: he wanted to unban his trumper and russian bot friends who were helping his businesses financially through back-door political dealings), and in fact he has spent a huge chunk of his own personal time in the first week banning people for making jokes.
very typical paradigmatic example of right-wing/tech-libertarian concept of 'free speech' here. he's tRigGeReD.
if you use twitter for more than a day then you very quickly realise that a lot of the replies and engagement with popular political figures are pretty much bots.
it’s a systemic issue that twitter themselves have been trying to find a fix for, for years.
sorry war man but it’s not all about your (now irrelevant) god daddy. trump is history already. nobody cares.
I wouldn't necessarily say Trump is history, but don't care too much about him. Don't care for DeSantis either as something about him bothers me and can't put my finger on why.
Oh God with the Russian bot bullshit. Seriously? If Trump was working with Russia, why didn't Russia invade Ukraine sooner?uziq wrote:
i literally love that he took it over saying it was going to become a beacon of free speech (read: he wanted to unban his trumper and russian bot friends who were helping his businesses financially through back-door political dealings), and in fact he has spent a huge chunk of his own personal time in the first week banning people for making jokes.
very typical paradigmatic example of right-wing/tech-libertarian concept of 'free speech' here. he's tRigGeReD.
Apparently Alaska introduced ranked voting this year, which confused a lot of old Republican voters because they didn't understand it while the democrats were good at explaining it to their voter base. At least that is the excuse being used.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Sarah Palin lost the election to the house of representatives. To a democrat. Alaska only has one house seat. Big upset.
Shooter would've done that with a pistol if ar-15's were banned. If Elijah wasn't there, there would've been more dead, possible everyone in the mall as police would've arrived too late.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Didn't he kill like 3 people in 15 seconds anyway?
Also Elijah reacted as soon as he heard gunfire and got 8/10 shots hitting the shooter at 40 fricken yards. I struggle to get a good grouping at 25 yards with a pistol.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/17/us/i … index.html
Oh look, a shooter with ar style rifle was stopped by a guy with a glock. Guess we don't need to ban ar's and really shows how pathetic Uvalde cops were.
Oh look, a shooter with ar style rifle was stopped by a guy with a glock. Guess we don't need to ban ar's and really shows how pathetic Uvalde cops were.
Every gun is technically military style, so banning military style weapons is banning all weapons. Civilians able to have superior weaponry than their nation's military is not unusual if you do some research. You act like the military is all high tech with top end stuff for every soldier, when that is simply not the case and has been that way for hundreds of years. Hell there was a time in the 1800's when the military still used only muzzle loading guns while civilians could purchase and own high capacity magazine weapons. Hell it was never illegal to being able to own cannons and even have a privateer fleet of ships with said cannons.uziq wrote:
how is an assault rifle a great weapon for home defense? you keeping it under your pillow for that night-time rapist, war man? how quickly can you load and fire an AR-15 from storage compared to a simple revolver or handgun? are you going to account for all those rounds you loose off in a densely packed urban or suburban environment? a panicked person in a home invasion scenario is not going to double-tap a few well-aimed shots at the intruder.
'fascistic policies'. lol. there is nothing fascist about banning military-style weapons from civilian hands. you do know the constitution also makes it illegal to take up arms against the government for the sake of revolt, too, right? it is expressly unconstitutional to do what you are doing: threatening violence and insurrection against law enforcement or representatives of the state.
banning AR-15's already HAS worked. there is data on this.
Also again, ar-15 is not an assault rifle. It's a sporting rifle if you want classification.
Well it is also against the constitution to infringe on the rights of civilian ownership of arms, even if it is a government doing it. It becomes a grey area when both sides are violating the constitution.
Regarding AR-15's for home defense, if you read my fucking post you would realize I mentioned using hollow points if worried about rounds over penetrating. There is a whole variety of different kinds of ammo for most guns, some use the same bullet but have different powder loads. Of course if someone is into hand loading(although I don't think many people bother reloading .223 and .22 considering how cheap they are to buy off the shelf) they can further customize it.
Also you can easily have a case under the bed with readily available loaded magazines nearby if you so desire.
Of course you can have a pistol caliber shouldered weapon too as that is sufficient. I am not dissing shotguns or pistols as I have those too, but they aren't the only good options.
So we ban ar-15's then what? Shooters use mini-14's, pistols, illegally acquired weaponry, etc.. So we ban those then what? Still can acquire illegally acquired weaponry, meanwhile law abiding citizens aren't allowed to own any kind of weapons. Besides anti-gunners will never be satisfied until all guns are banned, give them an inch they take a mile so I may as well ignore them when they can't be reasoned with if they want all guns banned.
I don't assign gender roles to weapons, when you brought up revolvers for home defense I remembered the stereotypical "Revolvers are best for women" BS.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"X is best/bad for females" isn't actually a thing I pay much attention to. Women are women, not a different species. You should see them with all kinds of firearms at the range. Maybe you have to be the type to film "firing her first gun, lulz" videos to buy into the notion that a woman can't pull a stiff trigger. I actually despise these "her first gun" videos. Way too often these jerks are giving a newbie too much gun, and then upload the chortling results for youtube lulz.Warman wrote:
Not everyone likes the recoil of a shotgun. I will never understand "revolvers are best for females" BS. Trigger pull is generally going to be longer if firing double action which is more likely to happen. Also pistols that you can't get a good proper grip on, due to short grips like a pocket revolver, require more practice to shoot accurately and properly control the recoil. A shouldered weapon like ar-15 or even a pistol caliber carbine is a far better option, granted if it has a stock and barrel length is under 16 inches you have to register it as an SBR(fuck you ATF) of course you could always give it a pistol brace to shoulder to make it classify as a pistol/other as is common in ar-15 pistols. shorter barrel is ideal for more maneuverability while shouldering it is easier to master. A shouldered weapon allows you to shoot accurately with it why also providing better control for recoil. Also don't need to practice as much with a shouldered carbine as you would with a pistol or shotgun. If worried about rounds over penetrating then just use hollow points.
With misogyny so linked to gun violence, it really isn't surprising to me to see someone in the gun world making a decision about what's best for women based on a stereotype. People in the gun world making up stories about daintier and daintier women to support their argument. Not surprising that you also know what's best for their uteruses. Do you know another group of humans who have low bodyweight and are slight of frame? Gradeschoolers.
Wouldn't the best weapon for anyone be the one they feel most comfortable and confident with, and have the most training for?
I'm not sure why you wouldn't have to practice with a rifle, that doesn't make sense. At the very least you're still going to have to maintain it and keep familiarized with operation. I've never had a shotgun jam on me. I actually prefer its recoil over palm-pounding handguns. Revolvers are likewise straightforward. Hammerless revolvers are pretty handy actually, in that it won't snag on your clothing. Pistols in general are lauded for versatility in home defense, much easier to use one handed if you need your other for something like turning on a light or grabbing your kid. 30-50 wild hogs is a meme.
You disregarded AR-15's, saying they were not ideal for women for home defense saying and suggested a pocket revolver and I disagreed, go ahead and read your damn quote again. You're the one that was determining weapons for a women.
Also you mistake me. I agree with practicing and training frequently with firearms no matter what. I was only saying that it is generally easier for people to get good with a shouldered non-shotgun weapon than with a pistol and shotgun. There are some people that somehow are terrible with rifles and pistol caliber shouldered weapons while amazing with a pistol. The weapon that you are most effective and comfortable with is indeed the best weapon for home defense, I don't question that. You just disregarded ar-15's
Semi-automatic rifles are frequently an afterthought or bottom of the list for home defense in both tactical and tacticool articles and "rankings." Typically, shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, and even revolvers are favored first. Between the advantages and disadvantages of the pistol and rifle respectively, a pistol is often deemed more of a practical and utilitarian choice.
Armed households I'm acquainted with keep their pistols closest at hand, while the rifles remain in the safe until it's time to go to the range.
Warman's hypothetical 120 lb rape victim would probably be better served by a pocket 442 than an AR clone in the safe somewhere in the garage.
I mentioned self-defense with the not rape victim as an example.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I am impressed that Warman chose the worst argument in favor of having AR-15s. Self-defense? Protecting liberty against tyrannical government? Nope. "Muh hobbies". It sounds so incredibly selfish. Lives > my hobbies and personal identity.
Talking to Ken about how "it is part of my lifestyle" is also something that probably works with only a very specific type of liberal. It is 2022. Society is way past politely respecting silly lifestyle choices.
Not everyone likes the recoil of a shotgun. I will never understand "revolvers are best for females" BS. Trigger pull is generally going to be longer if firing double action which is more likely to happen. Also pistols that you can't get a good proper grip on, due to short grips like a pocket revolver, require more practice to shoot accurately and properly control the recoil. A shouldered weapon like ar-15 or even a pistol caliber carbine is a far better option, granted if it has a stock and barrel length is under 16 inches you have to register it as an SBR(fuck you ATF) of course you could always give it a pistol brace to shoulder to make it classify as a pistol/other as is common in ar-15 pistols. shorter barrel is ideal for more maneuverability while shouldering it is easier to master. A shouldered weapon allows you to shoot accurately with it why also providing better control for recoil. Also don't need to practice as much with a shouldered carbine as you would with a pistol or shotgun. If worried about rounds over penetrating then just use hollow points.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Semi-automatic rifles are frequently an afterthought or bottom of the list for home defense in both tactical and tacticool articles and "rankings." Typically, shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, and even revolvers are favored first. Between the advantages and disadvantages of the pistol and rifle respectively, a pistol is often deemed more of a practical and utilitarian choice.
Armed households I'm acquainted with keep their pistols closest at hand, while the rifles remain in the safe until it's time to go to the range.
Warman's hypothetical 120 lb rape victim would probably be better served by a pocket 442 than an AR clone in the safe somewhere in the garage.
Banning ar-15's won't fricken work. Criminals will find a way. Even if it hypothetically works and we ban AR-15's, you seriously think every single owner would comply with the government? More and more people in USA are becoming gun owners and alot of them are getting ar-15's. Trying to take away such weapons from paranoid people will make school shootings child's play in comparison to the amount of death that will happen with fascistic policies that violate the constitution "...Shall not be infringed."uziq wrote:
society makes all sorts of hobbies and personal pursuits illegal. that's what a great portion of laws are about, war man: preventing harm to others and harm to yourself. your hobby revolves around lethal firearms that are expressly designed to murder a whole lot of people. there are very few hobbies that are so expressly geared around violence and harming other people. the best 'practical use' argument you can make for keeping massively overpowered rifles is that you want to hunt big animals. it 'being fun' to let off rounds at the range seems like a pretty paltry and selfish reason for keeping around weapons that frequently murder schoolrooms of children. getting drunk and racing around the roads with your friends is a fun pursuit for young people, for instance: should we have no laws around DUIs or speeding because street racing is a 'lifestyle'?War Man wrote:
Oh you want me to fucking change my lifestyle? Maybe I should start demanding you change your ways if I don't like them. Fuck off.
I guess you don't give a shit if a 120 pound woman gets her place invaded by a 200+ lb rapist and unable to defend herself because laws prevent her from owning a gun. Oh wait I forgot leftist arguments, "It's ok if abortion is legal, because she can just get an abortion if rapist impregnated" Fucking liberals.
who is proposing any law that would stop a person owning a gun for personal protection? we are talking about AR-15s and weapons with a high capacity to cause mass death. i'm not making any arguments that america should outlaw guns completely; i know that's way beyond any debate in your country. personally, i prefer living in a country where guns are not part of the equation of day-to-day life, but i'm not making that criticism of american life here. we are talking about assault rifles, again.
AR-15's are a great option for home-defense.
Many politicians that want to ban guns are fricken lawyers. Having to use technicalities and terminologies seems like a necessity to use when dealing with them as well as making your case in a court.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Why do pro-gun want to educate gun control people on terminology anyway? You'd just have a bunch of stainless steel gun control tweets/laws and nothing wrong to catch onto for an ackshyually deflection, like pro-gun always does. And apparently, according to your post, a more comprehensive/thorough set of laws and bans.War Man wrote:
I mean guns have evolved from musket to the bolt action to automatics. Every single design could be considered military style because the basic design at one point was used by a military.uziq wrote:
let me assure you that not a single person outside of the US gives a fuck about the distinction. your country looks like a dumpster fire and you’re emphasising fine legal or technical distinctions.
it turns out that 400 heavily armed and armoured cops in uvalde were afraid of one skinny teenager. maybe the trigger/firing mechanism of the AR-15 isn’t the most important thing when discussing whether to ban it or not, hey?
isn’t the AR-15 a military-style assault rifle anyway. just as i described? you want to claim it’s only an “assault-style” weapon because it’s not the full military version? erm ok. potato potahto. people sure be making that “-style” suffix do a lot of work in their dipshit deflections.
the clinton-era ban included them in its list of ‘assault weapons’, no?
you got exactly my meaning. did you bump your head one too many times in basic?
i seem to recall a ‘war man’ was a term that described a person who actually fought in a war. ??? you’re more of a war-style man, if anything.
Yes AR-15's were banned in the assault weapons ban, meanwhile the mini-14 with similar functionality and performance to ar-15 was perfectly legal. Hell there were situations where a gun had its pistol grip variants banned despite the performance being the same, but the pistol grip version looked "scary" so it was banned.
In fact the assault weapons ban in a nutshell was just a ban on weapons and features that looked scary despite said features having no impact on the weapons' performance. Assault Weapons is just made up terminologies by politicians to scare the public into banning more guns. Hell the origins of "Assault Rifle" was more of a propaganda thing when Hitler was presented with the MP-44 which he had renamed StG-44 or "Sturmgewehr 44" which I'm pretty sure you can figure out its translation.
Hell in Canada, they banned ak's but for awhile vz58's were legal despite both being 7.62x39 rifles with similar appearance as well as performance.
Then there is the streetsweeper shotgun which is kind of a piece of shit shotgun, yet NFA labels it as a "Destructive Device". Meanwhile you can buy a saiga 12k or any other 12 gauge shotgun of similar or higher capacity that is far superior to the streetsweeper.
Then there is the ban of importation of 7N6 5.45mm rounds which are labelled as "armor piercing" by virtue of having a steel core, never mind the fact that it has shit penetration compared to a 5.56mm round that isn't armor piercing. The 7N6 rounds are steel core because Russians want to make their shit as cheap as possible.
Then we have my dear beloved President saying things like "9mm blows the lungs out of someone" despite being untrue, meanwhile suggests a double barrel shotgun for home defense, of which slug rounds can potentially blow the lungs out of someone....
I remember a Hillary Clinton awhile back having a tweat that said suppressors increase lethality.... Suppressors decrease muzzle velocity which I am pretty sure doesn't increase lethality, the opposite if anything.
I could go on and on with bunch more examples. I am generally against any kind of gun laws/restrictions because often times they are made by people that are ignorant of guns and up creating laws that are contradictory, inconsistent, and/or just plain incorrect. Of course it is possible they know better, but they just want guns banned so they fucking lie to get things banned.The guy is running for politics, hell he could easily be someone that actually doesn't own any guns but wants votes so says and does whatever to get it. Being Texan doesn't guarantee being a big gun guy. It took Texas awhile to be a constitutional carry state when several states before it became constitutional carry.uziq wrote:
https://twitter.com/ronnyjacksontx/status/1548803270696640512?s=21&t=ZE5gayO6PV77NrCc0pWfwA
this texan calls them ‘assault rifles’ too?
even people on your side of the debate are pretty casual with their terms, it seems. doh!
Never underestimate what a mentally ill person can and will do.uziq wrote:
this 'the bad guys will always get guns' argument is weak piss when it comes to mass shooting. mass shooters are not criminal underworld 'bad guys' with ties to black-market gun smuggling. they're not cartel affiliates or gangsters. they are lone individuals who plot these things in private, and they are enabled precisely by the legal status of what they're doing when they are amassing their arsenals and making their plans.War Man wrote:
My hobbies aren't going to either unless I am prevented from being able to do them.SuperJail Warden wrote:
The biggest thing driving mass shootings is a desire for infamy and power from losers. Rifles with all the bells and whistles help weak men feel powerful. Being able to tell the difference between different bullets makes stupid people feel smart. We are never going to solve this mass shooting or gang violence issue if we continue to hold onto this idea that guns = power.
None of my hobbies have resulted in a national murder crisis. Strange how that works out.
Criminals are going to figure a way to obtain a gun if they want one. We have so many guns in America that we can't realistically ban them. Besides, gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens, not lawbreakers because guess what? Lawbreakers don't give a shit about laws.
if you made assault weapons hard to get for your average joe with a grudge against society, then they would ... simply stop being able to find guns. can you imagine the uvalde or ohio shooter going to meet a gangster in a car park somewhere to buy an unlicensed gun from the trunk of a car? really, war man?
Oh you want me to fucking change my lifestyle? Maybe I should start demanding you change your ways if I don't like them. Fuck off.uziq wrote:
war man, whilst i don't doubt that you know your weapons very well and can indeed poke holes in any legal or technical definitions, what you're highlighting are just the technical limitations of any sort of legal ban, or indeed legislative definitions in general. there is always an 'arms race' (no pun intended) between a textual or legal definition and real-world applications of that term, which inevitably escape it.War Man wrote:
[...]
I could go on and on with bunch more examples. I am generally against any kind of gun laws/restrictions because often times they are made by people that are ignorant of guns and up creating laws that are contradictory, inconsistent, and/or just plain incorrect. Of course it is possible they know better, but they just want guns banned so they fucking lie to get things banned.The guy is running for politics, hell he could easily be someone that actually doesn't own any guns but wants votes so says and does whatever to get it. Being Texan doesn't guarantee being a big gun guy. It took Texas awhile to be a constitutional carry state when several states before it became constitutional carry.uziq wrote:
https://twitter.com/ronnyjacksontx/status/1548803270696640512?s=21&t=ZE5gayO6PV77NrCc0pWfwA
this texan calls them ‘assault rifles’ too?
even people on your side of the debate are pretty casual with their terms, it seems. doh!
it's the same thing with the war on drugs. legislation is modified to add to an ever-growing list of chemicals and substances which are declared dangerous or 'scare imbeciles' (to use your term) into political action. in chemistry as in gun design: change a few molecules or 'palm grip' modules here and there, and you technically have a 'new' thing by an extremely literal legal definition – perhaps even a more dangerous new thing compared to the afeared illegal ones. occasionally someone will come up with the seemingly logical idea to include entire classes of drugs in a sweeping ban, just to foreclose the possibility of this future tinkering and to shut down the ever-escalating arms race or increasing speciation. ... but then those class-based definitions never quite hold, as there are no fixed ontological and universal categories: there is no a priori 'amphetamine' class that will cover all future variations that chemists cook up, just as there is no a priori 'assault weapon' class that will effortlessly and cleanly classify all weapons. this is why legal interpretation exists and why a little commonsense goes a long way.
so far, so legal. this is just a basic language problem of semantics, and of trying to nail down a complex reality, into relatively simple and logical categories for the purposes of legislation. this is not an insuperable problem, however.
i can't help but feel you are missing the forest for the trees. the gun control problem has been largely nixed in every other country on earth by a swift ban of 'assault-style weapons'. doesn't matter if there are technically 'better' assault rifles that a specialist could still get hold of, or a gun-nut aficionado. (most mass killers are not gun-nut aficionados, i'd wager: they're unhinged individuals who just want to get hold of the easiest thing that can kill very quickly.) putting in place reasonable restrictions, regulations, background checks, etc, - which includes at a federal level of coordination - can go a long ways to putting this phenomenon to bed. there are many, many case studies where a country has effectively nipped its mass shootings phenomenon in the bud with a judicious and timely ban: australia and new zealand are two recent examples.
criminals will always be able to get guns if they really want them; probably true enough. you'll never be able to ban a class of weapons in a way that is entirely technically correct and doesn't produce weird exceptions or categorisations; probably true enough. but there are reasonable steps that a country can take to make these things sufficiently difficult to get. the fact is that right now an unhinged individual can acquire an extremely proficient killing weapon in most states with little to no bother at all. that's clearly a major contributor to mass killings, and it can be dealt with in the main by a broad-brush political solution, even if that makes a niche of hobbyists and weapon enthusiasts wrinkle their brow and start muttering 'ackshually ...'for a ban that was "technically inconsistent and contradictory" from the POV of a gun enthusiast, it was also, erm, an effective piece of legislation that evidently served its purpose. again, i'm not claiming it was literally and exhaustively perfect in its definitions (see, again, drugs bans), and that it didn't make a few militia LARPers in illinois angry because they couldn't get hold of their latest spec ops roleplay gear.War Man wrote:
In fact the assault weapons ban in a nutshell was just a ban on weapons and features that looked scary despite said features having no impact on the weapons' performance.
people here can get hold of guns if they have a technical and specialist reason for doing so. for which they have to go through a long list of paperwork and database registrations to make sure that they are (a) compos mentis, (b) have a justified reason for needing the weapon, and (c) can quickly be held responsible for anything that happens with that firearm. this might scream 'tyranny' to you, but europeans generally like living in societies where they don't have to worry about their children being murdered to death when dropped off each day to learn their ABCs. it seems to me that you're willing to live with a very high level of background anxiety, misery, death and terror just so you can get excited about the difference between ammo types and camo patterns. i dunno: maybe just get a new hobby, semi-war man?
I guess you don't give a shit if a 120 pound woman gets her place invaded by a 200+ lb rapist and unable to defend herself because laws prevent her from owning a gun. Oh wait I forgot leftist arguments, "It's ok if abortion is legal, because she can just get an abortion if rapist impregnated" Fucking liberals.
Regarding those statistics in that chart, it looks like that even during assault weapons ban, such shootings at its highest peak were more than pre-assault weapons ban's highest peak judging by the chart. I see an overall increase overtime and assault weapons ban not making a fucking difference according to that chart. Really as years went by school shootings increased regardless, it seems we have more of a societal issue to fix.
Hell in the '60's kids brought their guns to school and stored them in gun racks when they took classes and there weren't many school shootings then. I am not suggesting we bring that back, I am just saying that even back then when people could bring guns to school, shootings at school were less than they are now. It seems we are suffering a societal problem where people just go berserk and go on killings, we need to find a way to rectify that instead of just banning guns.
No, I wouldn't bother civilians.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Do you have some targets in mind? Food courts?War Man wrote:
If politicians make me a criminal to the point I don't give a shit anymore, then maybe.SuperJail Warden wrote:
aren't you a uniform soldier. You going to go rambo if you can't play with guns?
If politicians make me a criminal to the point I don't give a shit anymore, then maybe.SuperJail Warden wrote:
aren't you a uniform soldier. You going to go rambo if you can't play with guns?War Man wrote:
My hobbies aren't going to either unless I am prevented from being able to do them.
Helicopters use a different fuel...SuperJail Warden wrote:
I have never been on a helicopter. I don't know why other people are entitled to helicopter rides on my dime. Especially with these gas prices!
Racistuziq wrote:
you couldn't pay me to get close to a chinese person. they are lowest-tier asians. land-born lobsters.SuperJail Warden wrote:
That's too bad because I really want your feedback. You are without a doubt the clan leader of the (bf2s) Asian Female Appreciators. You haunt their lands. So what do you think I should do or not do, [BF2s] Uzique?
My hobbies aren't going to either unless I am prevented from being able to do them.SuperJail Warden wrote:
The biggest thing driving mass shootings is a desire for infamy and power from losers. Rifles with all the bells and whistles help weak men feel powerful. Being able to tell the difference between different bullets makes stupid people feel smart. We are never going to solve this mass shooting or gang violence issue if we continue to hold onto this idea that guns = power.
None of my hobbies have resulted in a national murder crisis. Strange how that works out.
Criminals are going to figure a way to obtain a gun if they want one. We have so many guns in America that we can't realistically ban them. Besides, gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens, not lawbreakers because guess what? Lawbreakers don't give a shit about laws.
They're only scary to imbeciles that are ignorant of guns. Ban those guns, and shooters just use alternatives or find a way to illegally obtain the banned guns and then we're back to square one. Forward grips are more of a matter of personal preference and comfort, doesn't really change the performance. Also the whole reason for shooters using such weaponry is because they are common weapons, it is only natural to use what is commonly used by law abiding citizens.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Okay, if there are functional alternatives then why not just ban the gun that now is the #1 choice of mass shooters? Those scary looking features are part of the mystique/looking cool part driving the shooting.War Man wrote:
Yes AR-15's were banned in the assault weapons ban, meanwhile the mini-14 with similar functionality and performance to ar-15 was perfectly legal. Hell there were situations where a gun had its pistol grip variants banned despite the performance being the same, but the pistol grip version looked "scary" so it was banned.
In fact the assault weapons ban in a nutshell was just a ban on weapons and features that looked scary despite said features having no impact on the weapons' performance.
Ohio food court gunman
If those features like an extended magazine and forward grip have no effect on functional performance...maybe we can get rid of them?
Edit: Besides, I'd rather keep my AR-15 that I can convert to 6.5 Grendel or 6mm ARC and use for hunting. Can't convert a mini-14 to other calibers like you can with an AR-15. I just recently bought 10 round Grendel magazines just for that possibility. Oh and before you got on my case with caliber conversion changing calibers, .223/5.56 are so common and cheap as well as easy to acquire not to mention 5.56 AR-15's are more prolific, so criminals are still likely to use 5.56 AR-15's.
I mean guns have evolved from musket to the bolt action to automatics. Every single design could be considered military style because the basic design at one point was used by a military.uziq wrote:
let me assure you that not a single person outside of the US gives a fuck about the distinction. your country looks like a dumpster fire and you’re emphasising fine legal or technical distinctions.War Man wrote:
I seem to recall an "assault rifle" requires being able to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull. The shooter had a semi-auto ar-15, not an assault rifle.uziq wrote:
i can think of about 26 other things i'd rather be doing than stood in a metre-wide gym locker with 28 other people whilst a person unloads a military-style assault rifle into it.
it turns out that 400 heavily armed and armoured cops in uvalde were afraid of one skinny teenager. maybe the trigger/firing mechanism of the AR-15 isn’t the most important thing when discussing whether to ban it or not, hey?
isn’t the AR-15 a military-style assault rifle anyway. just as i described? you want to claim it’s only an “assault-style” weapon because it’s not the full military version? erm ok. potato potahto. people sure be making that “-style” suffix do a lot of work in their dipshit deflections.
the clinton-era ban included them in its list of ‘assault weapons’, no?
you got exactly my meaning. did you bump your head one too many times in basic?
i seem to recall a ‘war man’ was a term that described a person who actually fought in a war. ??? you’re more of a war-style man, if anything.
Yes AR-15's were banned in the assault weapons ban, meanwhile the mini-14 with similar functionality and performance to ar-15 was perfectly legal. Hell there were situations where a gun had its pistol grip variants banned despite the performance being the same, but the pistol grip version looked "scary" so it was banned.
In fact the assault weapons ban in a nutshell was just a ban on weapons and features that looked scary despite said features having no impact on the weapons' performance. Assault Weapons is just made up terminologies by politicians to scare the public into banning more guns. Hell the origins of "Assault Rifle" was more of a propaganda thing when Hitler was presented with the MP-44 which he had renamed StG-44 or "Sturmgewehr 44" which I'm pretty sure you can figure out its translation.
Hell in Canada, they banned ak's but for awhile vz58's were legal despite both being 7.62x39 rifles with similar appearance as well as performance.
Then there is the streetsweeper shotgun which is kind of a piece of shit shotgun, yet NFA labels it as a "Destructive Device". Meanwhile you can buy a saiga 12k or any other 12 gauge shotgun of similar or higher capacity that is far superior to the streetsweeper.
Then there is the ban of importation of 7N6 5.45mm rounds which are labelled as "armor piercing" by virtue of having a steel core, never mind the fact that it has shit penetration compared to a 5.56mm round that isn't armor piercing. The 7N6 rounds are steel core because Russians want to make their shit as cheap as possible.
Then we have my dear beloved President saying things like "9mm blows the lungs out of someone" despite being untrue, meanwhile suggests a double barrel shotgun for home defense, of which slug rounds can potentially blow the lungs out of someone....
I remember a Hillary Clinton awhile back having a tweat that said suppressors increase lethality.... Suppressors decrease muzzle velocity which I am pretty sure doesn't increase lethality, the opposite if anything.
I could go on and on with bunch more examples. I am generally against any kind of gun laws/restrictions because often times they are made by people that are ignorant of guns and up creating laws that are contradictory, inconsistent, and/or just plain incorrect. Of course it is possible they know better, but they just want guns banned so they fucking lie to get things banned.
The guy is running for politics, hell he could easily be someone that actually doesn't own any guns but wants votes so says and does whatever to get it. Being Texan doesn't guarantee being a big gun guy. It took Texas awhile to be a constitutional carry state when several states before it became constitutional carry.uziq wrote:
https://twitter.com/ronnyjacksontx/status/1548803270696640512?s=21&t=ZE5gayO6PV77NrCc0pWfwA
this texan calls them ‘assault rifles’ too?
even people on your side of the debate are pretty casual with their terms, it seems. doh!
I seem to recall an "assault rifle" requires being able to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull. The shooter had a semi-auto ar-15, not an assault rifle.uziq wrote:
i can think of about 26 other things i'd rather be doing than stood in a metre-wide gym locker with 28 other people whilst a person unloads a military-style assault rifle into it.
LolSuperJail Warden wrote:
Modern tanks have er modern computer.
Stabilized fire systems allowing them to fire accurately while driving full speed. Russian tanks can fire guided missiles which need computer systems to uh guide them.
Roe vs Wade is gone!!!
Plenty of Gen X toounnamednewbie13 wrote:
Some of these 30/40 year late sequels seem to be mostly for boomers to relive the glory days of the movies they liked when they were young parents. I will not begrudge an old person watching the Top Gun sequel, but the notion of seeing it never drew me in. Never mind that I was into aviation stuff.
Well a few years back, I took a break from Armored Warfare and they completely reset my progress due to not playing combined with online matches being difficult to find that I just straight up quit that game. Can't even get a PVE game, then again don't want to work my way up the tech tree all over again.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
IMO,
Armored Warfare was fun, for awhile. Played lots of PVE (similarly to WoWS), but got tired of the dated physics. Avoided WT because I thought I'd get into it too much. WoT felt like a good arcade balance, but WG's moneymaking strategy bled too deeply into the gameplay. Even so, I could've looked past that and the paper tanks if the community wasn't hot garbage. I think I booted it up once after they reworked vehicle equipment loadouts, but I didn't feel like learning a bunch of new stuff for it. Or getting caught at the end of a match by some clan like "hey, we noticed you have an Obj 907/Chieftain/whatever, we need more of those!" ugh, the clan meta was so duuullll.
Warthunder is a bit more realistic as it is more on hitting weakpoints of vehicles or killing the crew of enemy vehicles to get a kil. Also doesn't have a spotting system like World of Tanks', it is your eyeball and binoculars to spot vehiclesl. Plus you can use all weaponry, including machine guns as there are aircraft and unarmored vehicles even in higher tiers. Some problems are the way they tier the vehicles sometimes is weird and of course still some prototype vehicles, although there isn't BS like Tiger I's with long 88's or any other guns that weren't ever on the vehicle that world of tanks takes liberties of. Almost all vehicles have the correct guns in warthunder which is appreciative. It is too bad I started playing warthunder when I started to stop playing videogames routinely.