RE: The ignorance of liberals

RE: The ignorance of liberals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/11/2014 9:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: joether If Americans were limited to muskets, as per the 2nd amendment Is it your position then, Joether, that the 1st Amendment only applies to the unamplified spoken word, and is restricted to materials written by hand, or created on hand operated presses? If a lamp post could talk, it would have the advantage over joether of not being able to think it knows what it's talking about. K.

BamaD -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 12:08:56 AM)
And I'm sure you did not have that in mind when making the comment. But I think lovmuffin's and Sanity's rants fall on the line of 'dumb things to say on the subject'. If Americans were limited to muskets, as per the 2nd amendment A Oklahoma City was a nut, not a conservative. Even if he were a conservative I, unlike liberals do not whitewash foul deeds committed by people who are on the same half of the political spectrum as me. B When the 2nd was written the musket was the state of the art military weapon. So to be consistent you would have to support private ownership of the M2 machine gun. Also it allowed private ownership of cannon, do you really want that?

Lucylastic -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 1:14:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic well done Rich.... now are you gonna lick the spoon??? Somebody has to keep this place moving, Lucy, and I don't see the "too old for soccer hooliganism" foreign cheerleaders for the Democrats doing a very good job of it. [8\|] If you want something to lick too, I'm sure that can be arranged. [8D] you are stirring so much shit Rich, you will need a dough hook more than a spoon.... keep dreaming[8\|]

DomKen -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 4:45:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: HausVonHerrin i can't imagine anything lighter than a bolt action single shot rifle of similar size and barrel length. I never hunted elk with anything smaller than a .30-06 but it's always a campfire discussion about ,270 or 7mm being being enough gun for the long distances and big bug animals in the high country. I liked bolt actions for their light weight but I admit I am old school. If you have an 30-06 in the same weight as a .223 the recoil is much greater, and the bolt action is harder to manipulate. Remember I was referring to people for whom the weight and recoil would be a problem. Clearly you do not qualify. I personally have little to no use for a .223 in any configuration, this does not mean I wish to infringe on the rights of those who do. In a bolt action hunting rifle recoil shouldn't be an issue beyond having a sore shoulder afterwards. The animal isn't going to stand still to give you a second shot anyway so you make the first one count. And I've seen 100 lb. girls fire .30-06's comfortably. This nonsense that someone could be frail enough that they couldn't comfortably handle a 30.06 bolt action but could comfortably handle an AR-15? Show me that person. A 90 to 100 pound woman can handle the recoil of a .223 much better than an 30-06. As anyone should know a bolt action is not gas operated and the AR is this means (for the uneducated like you) that even if the AR were in 30-06 the recoil would be much less. And other than in your delusions the semi auto function would make it simpler to use. You also missed the point that I was talking about why, for some, the AR types might be the logical choice for home defense. I can add that a .223 is less likely to go thru walls than an 06 I might add that a bolt action is not a good choice for home defense. As I wrote previously I've seen 100 lb. girls shoot .30-06 bolt action rifles with no trouble. And actually for the truly not clueless since a gas operated weapon contains all of its discharge to operate the mechanism versus a bolt which lets it all leave the weapon immediately a bolt will tend to have less felt recoil that is why sharp shooters prefer bolts over semis. You have bought into the bullshit of the gun industry that wants to sell AR's. It's a crappy caliber not suited for hunting and definitely not suited for home defense, no rifle is. If you want a long gun for home defense get a shotgun.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 4:46:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic then theres the evil dead! One, Two and Three!!

Lucylastic -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 4:58:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic then theres the evil dead! One, Two and Three!! [image]http://www.lucylasticslair.com/colllar/whoselaughinnow.gif[/image] [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

BamaD -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 5:12:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: HausVonHerrin i can't imagine anything lighter than a bolt action single shot rifle of similar size and barrel length. I never hunted elk with anything smaller than a .30-06 but it's always a campfire discussion about ,270 or 7mm being being enough gun for the long distances and big bug animals in the high country. I liked bolt actions for their light weight but I admit I am old school. If you have an 30-06 in the same weight as a .223 the recoil is much greater, and the bolt action is harder to manipulate. Remember I was referring to people for whom the weight and recoil would be a problem. Clearly you do not qualify. I personally have little to no use for a .223 in any configuration, this does not mean I wish to infringe on the rights of those who do. In a bolt action hunting rifle recoil shouldn't be an issue beyond having a sore shoulder afterwards. The animal isn't going to stand still to give you a second shot anyway so you make the first one count. And I've seen 100 lb. girls fire .30-06's comfortably. This nonsense that someone could be frail enough that they couldn't comfortably handle a 30.06 bolt action but could comfortably handle an AR-15? Show me that person. A 90 to 100 pound woman can handle the recoil of a .223 much better than an 30-06. As anyone should know a bolt action is not gas operated and the AR is this means (for the uneducated like you) that even if the AR were in 30-06 the recoil would be much less. And other than in your delusions the semi auto function would make it simpler to use. You also missed the point that I was talking about why, for some, the AR types might be the logical choice for home defense. I can add that a .223 is less likely to go thru walls than an 06 I might add that a bolt action is not a good choice for home defense. As I wrote previously I've seen 100 lb. girls shoot .30-06 bolt action rifles with no trouble. And actually for the truly not clueless since a gas operated weapon contains all of its discharge to operate the mechanism versus a bolt which lets it all leave the weapon immediately a bolt will tend to have less felt recoil that is why sharp shooters prefer bolts over semis. You have bought into the bullshit of the gun industry that wants to sell AR's. It's a crappy caliber not suited for hunting and definitely not suited for home defense, no rifle is. If you want a long gun for home defense get a shotgun. That is stupid, part of the gas operation reduces recoil, with the bolt the only thing that absorbs recoil is a good butt pad. The AR is not my personal weapon of choice for any work. That doesn't mean that I want to deprive others of the right to choose it. You have proven time and again that you know less than nothing about firearms or their use. PS you just hoisted yourself on your own petard, if the AR is such a lousy gun why get rid of them, do you want the bad guys (who virtually never use long guns anyway ) to use better weapons like shotguns?

BamaD -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 5:54:29 AM)
How do you think the gas gets back to the action? It goes into a tube near the muzzle it then is directed back to the action. When it hits that turn sending it back to the action it reduces the recoil. Anyone who knows a quarter of what you pretend to knows this, why don't you? You have just given a demonstration of what this thread is about.

smileforme50 -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 7:11:10 AM)
All I fucking know about any of this is that I have an EX bf who had a collection of guns.....from what he told me, "nothing fancy....but a wide variety". When I left him, he had over 30 guns. I used to say...."WTF do you need so many guns for? Can't you kill someone just as easily with any ONE of them??" He kept a 9mm in his nightstand drawer....everything else was locked up in a safe. I used to ask him.....if someone breaks into this house and you're in the basement....with all your guns on the second floor, how much good are all these guns going to do you then? What are you going to do? Tell the intruders "Stop...wait a minute.....let me get upstairs...."? Then he decided that, since Delaware is an "open carry" state, he would start carrying his .45 on his belt. I just rolled my eyes....shook my head....and moved out. As far as I know, he still hasn't had to use any of those guns for anything but paper targets. But if the army of a very small country ever invades us, he will have it all under control in a matter of moments.....no need to call the President.

lovmuffin -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 7:56:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen ...a bolt will tend to have less felt recoil that is why sharp shooters prefer bolts over semis. Who knew ? And all these years I thought semi autos had less recoil and sharp shooters on average prefer bolt guns because you can tweek more mechanical accuracy out of them.

joether -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 9:01:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD A Oklahoma City was a nut, not a conservative. I find it curious that multitudes of conservatives blame Muslims for 9/11. They blame a great many people for the actions of just a token few. They demand apologizes and become out rage when none come. Yet, when looked at from their perspective, 9/11, while a tragedy is not their fault. They'll admit it was done by '...nuts...' and not by sane, rational individuals. So why should they apologize for something that is not the fault of them or their view on their philosophy? The two individuals that blew up the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City on 4/19, were part of the loosely organized group: The Militiaman Movement. The same group that would be the precursor to the modern day Tea Party. The similarities between these two groups heavily out weighs their differences. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Even if he were a conservative I, unlike liberals do not whitewash foul deeds committed by people who are on the same half of the political spectrum as me. Lets see, the two guys were not liking President Clinton, nor the Democrats. They were not liberal nor moderate. They were not insane nor possessed by evil spirits/demons/ghost of jack the ripper. And their 'views' were very consistent with more extreme views held by conservatives back then, and agreeable to many conservatives in 2014. I'm not accusing you, BamaD of having anything to do with those two. I am saying that being conservative, talking abut using fertilizer to blow other people up, is in poor taste given US History. I would like to think you of many other conservatives on this forum could realize that such words, can have negative effects. What if I said I lost someone dear in that horrifying event? Would it sound so funny and amusing? That conservatives complain Muslims worldwide can not apologize for 9/11, yet feel they should get a free pass for 4/19? How hypocritical is that? An for the record, I didn't lose anyone I directly knew. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD When the 2nd was written the musket was the state of the art military weapon. So to be consistent you would have to support private ownership of the M2 machine gun. Also it allowed private ownership of cannon, do you really want that? When the 2nd was written, blacks were considered 3/5ths of a white person. Women were not allowed to vote. George Washington was not President. And the colonized numbered just thirteen. By your argument, blacks should be worth 3/67ths of a white person. Women are slaves and property in every sense. George Washington is worshipped like Jesus Christ. And there are still only thirteen colonies. Truth as they say, is stranger than fiction. George Washington is revered, not as a religious icon, but a patriotic one. Black people are just as equal to vote and participate in government as anyone else. Women not only vote, but run for public office. Our little country grew into one of the most powerful nations on the planet. 'Consistent' you say? How about wisdom? Would that not make for a better way of experiencing liberty?

joether -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 9:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: joether If Americans were limited to muskets, as per the 2nd amendment Is it your position then, Joether, that the 1st Amendment only applies to the unamplified spoken word, and is restricted to materials written by hand, or created on hand operated presses? If a lamp post could talk, it would have the advantage over joether of not being able to think it knows what it's talking about. Always with the useless, pointless, and child-like commentary. Never once giving anything of substantial value. Except as an example of what not to become in life....

Sanity -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 9:10:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I find it curious that multitudes of conservatives blame Muslims for 9/11. They blame a great many people for the actions of just a token few. They demand apologizes and become out rage when none come. Yet, when looked at from their perspective, 9/11, while a tragedy is not their fault. They'll admit it was done by '...nuts...' and not by sane, rational individuals. So why should they apologize for something that is not the fault of them or their view on their philosophy? The two individuals that blew up the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City on 4/19, were part of the loosely organized group: The Militiaman Movement. The same group that would be the precursor to the modern day Tea Party. The similarities between these two groups heavily out weighs their differences. Conservatives didn't dance in the streets after the Oklahoma City bombing, and as opposed your pathetic attempt to smear the Tea Party with an imaginary link to McVeigh, Barack Obama has actual ties to Weather Underground terrorists

mnottertail -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 9:12:16 AM)
No, he doesn't. However St. Wrinklemeat had ties to Saddam, and W to Bin Laden.

joether -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 9:23:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: joether If Americans were limited to muskets, as per the 2nd amendment Not gonna let this one slide... Is it your position then, Joether, that the 1st Amendment only applies to the unamplified spoken word, and is restricted to materials written by hand, or created on hand operated presses? America was limited to a great many things when the US Constitution was still under a year old. Time, history, knowledge, people, and debates, have made it much more so. When the ink was still wet, there numbered just ten amendments. Now, exists seventeen more. Where there was once just thirteen colonizes, there now is fifty states, six territories and one district. My position on the 1st amendment is like my position on the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and many after the Bill of Rights was formed: in-depth, complex and complicated. The 3rd and 7th do not come up as much in modern debates. Might be due to having 20 abandon houses for every homeless person we have in America (should we need barracks for more soldiers), and what was considered $20 back in the late 18th century is a 'yuppie food stamp' in 2014. Would you really take someone to court for $35? And if you did, be honestly surprised when the court throws you out of the building for wasting its time?

DomKen -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 9:26:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That is stupid, part of the gas operation reduces recoil, with the bolt the only thing that absorbs recoil is a good butt pad. The AR is not my personal weapon of choice for any work. That doesn't mean that I want to deprive others of the right to choose it. You have proven time and again that you know less than nothing about firearms or their use. PS you just hoisted yourself on your own petard, if the AR is such a lousy gun why get rid of them, do you want the bad guys (who virtually never use long guns anyway ) to use better weapons like shotguns? No, you clueless fuck. The AR is an excellent rifle for killing people, not that I'd ever use a rifle for home defense just to stave off your next stupid rejoinder. It was expressly designed for the job. That is why it should not be in civilian hands. And you are simply wrong about bolts and semi's. A semi does buck more than a bolt. The recoil is felt more because the gas moves various parts that operate the reload while in a bolt it simply comes straight into you. If you actually ever target shot you'd know that. There is a reason the Marines fought for years to keep their bolt action sniper rifles.

DomKen -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 9:35:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD How do you think the gas gets back to the action? It goes into a tube near the muzzle it then is directed back to the action. When it hits that turn sending it back to the action it reduces the recoil. Anyone who knows a quarter of what you pretend to knows this, why don't you? You have just given a demonstration of what this thread is about. Do you have a fucking clue what you are talking about? Do you know physics at all? When you fire a weapon that doesn't have some sort of gas operated reload you feel the entire recoil directly back into your shoulder. When you fire a gas operated weapon you feel almost the same recoil, the difference is miniscule, but it is in your shoulder and every other point where you are in contact with the gun and it makes the gun after go off target (the recoil operation is what makes semis rise after each shot). Please at least learn something about what you are talking about.

DomKen -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 9:37:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen ...a bolt will tend to have less felt recoil that is why sharp shooters prefer bolts over semis. Who knew ? And all these years I thought semi autos had less recoil and sharp shooters on average prefer bolt guns because you can tweek more mechanical accuracy out of them. You shouldn't be allowed to own any firearms. I'm astonished you don't hurt yourself with a BB gun.

Sanity -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 9:38:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You shouldn't be allowed to own any firearms. I'm astonished you don't hurt yourself with a BB gun. When leftists have nothing else, they project.

crazyml -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/12/2014 10:02:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And you are simply wrong about bolts and semi's. A semi does buck more than a bolt. The recoil is felt more because the gas moves various parts that operate the reload while in a bolt it simply comes straight into you. If you actually ever target shot you'd know that. There is a reason the Marines fought for years to keep their bolt action sniper rifles. That's not the conventional wisdom, or my experience. I always certainly felt less recoil with a semi. While there's some reduction caused by the return of the gas, I think the total recoil is about the same - If you're chucking lead up range at the same speed using two different guns newton's law dictates that the total backward pressure will be pretty much the same. I think that with a semi, though, the recoil energy is dissipated over a longer time. I am not an expert

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625