Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The ignorance of liberals


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 7:34:13 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If you hunt deer at the range the .223 was designed to be used at you are more pathetic than I thought and I already thought you were pretty damn pathetic.


Pathetic is running your mouth off when you don't have a clue. Is Joe Biden giving you advice on deer hunting now ? If you're hunting mule deer, it's common but not necessarily so, to get a shot beyond 100 yards. If you're hunting eastern white tail it's quite common that you will get a shot within 100 yards. It all really depends on the terrain and what type of firearm you're using to hunt with. You can't just put it into a nutshell and compare it to a combat situation with a .223. Ya can't put a combat situation into nutshell.

There is as much or more skill involved in getting to the point of being able to take that shot at a big game animal. You're going to take it regardless of the range.

I can see it now, DomKen to his huntin buddy when a deer walks out of the brush and crosses their path; "don't shoot, we need to back up beyond a hundred yards or we'll be pathetic".

Good Grief

I've hunted Eastern whitetail for 30 odd years and never shot one at less than 100 yards. You are full of shit. Only pathetic losers bait..

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 301
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 7:54:10 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
]Semi-automatics have additional parts, which means more mass, which means the weapon accelerates backward more slowly. Slower acceleration over a given distance (stock to shoulder) means lower velocity. Kinetic energy increases linearly with mass, and exponentially with velocity. This is why semi-automatics produce less felt recoil than their manual feed counterparts, because there actually is less energy moving into the shooter. This is well established within the shooting community and supported by classical mechanics. It can be substantially less too, depending on the weapon and round in question.

finally, felt recoil. Not actual recoil. The actual recoil still occurs, correct. You admit. You just feel it differently.
The idiot who started this believes that energy magically goes away..

(in reply to LetstalkboutRAP3)
Profile   Post #: 302
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 8:02:43 AM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've hunted Eastern whitetail for 30 odd years


Of course you have, do ya use a shotgun ? You're an expert on that and everything else on these forums. Joe Biden must be proud.



_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 303
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 8:12:27 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've hunted Eastern whitetail for 30 odd years


Of course you have, do ya use a shotgun ? You're an expert on that and everything else on these forums. Joe Biden must be proud.



No, in my younger years .30-06 and more recently .30-30. You know actually calibers you use for deer hunting. Although if CWD doesn't stop spreading I won't be doing much more hunting since it is getting hard to find a place near me that isn't infected.

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 304
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 8:56:54 AM   
LetstalkboutRAP3


Posts: 49
Joined: 9/30/2013
Status: offline
Oh, no you don't

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
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.


First of all, you are talking about hunting. When I made my point about women being able to utilize .223 semi-automatic rifles in an INFANTRY role, was it somehow unclear what I meant by "infantry"? The purpose of the Second isn't to protect hunters rights, or homeowners rights, or the profit streams of weapons manufacturers. It's purpose is to protect ALL rights from any enemy who would dare infringe them, be that enemy foreign or domestic.

Of course women can shoot a 30-06. Nobody said they can't. Hell I saw video of Randy weavers daughter shooting multiple rounds from a .45-70. I don't know how tall she is but she's thin. A day at the shooting or hunting range is hardly the same thing as guerilla warfare, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
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.


He's exactly right. The energy of the round is constant. The energy of the round that makes it into the shoulder of the shooter is LESS in a gas operated semi-automatic, than it is in a manual feed version of the same weapon. PERIOD. He's hardly an idiot. Neither are you. Unlike you, he is right in this instance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
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 .

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.


You said the opposite of what Bama and I and I think others have tried to explain to you. Maybe you just made a mistake, it happens.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 305
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 9:11:52 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

Just like a car may be street-legal, but if you cram additional engine components & chemicals into it, it may exceed regulations, yes, if you take a legal weapon and add illegal things to it, it will become illegal. But the issue is not personal customization with devices specifically designed to bypass legal restrictions. The issue is that some people are equating "out-of-the-box" semi-automatic weapons - WITHOUT any modifications - with full-auto military weapons.


Lets try it again moron...It is not "some people" who say this... it is the mother fucking batf. They have the power and authority to do as they choose.
While you are on google you might check just when the batf made it a statute that "any weapon that can be made to fire full auto,whether that was the designers original purpose or not shall be considered contraband."


(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 306
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 9:14:56 AM   
LetstalkboutRAP3


Posts: 49
Joined: 9/30/2013
Status: offline
Where are you hunting these deer? Not in Illinois?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 307
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 9:31:10 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kinksterparty
*wonders out loud* "How does one 'give' a tax cut? ... Taxes are imposed, so reducing their amount is still *collecting* money, not giving it out... Interesting semantics.


Reducing someone's tax liability is still a tax cut. What a tax cut isn't, however, is a subsidy.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to kinksterparty)
Profile   Post #: 308
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 9:38:46 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
I'd like Obama impeached, although that's impossible today given the composition of the Senate. So we'll have to settle for Lois Lerner's being put into jail and ratting on The Great One. Then even Dems would have to vote for impeachment (well, enough of them: 33 needn't turn at all).
Biden is maybe an idiot or perhaps it's a vaudeville act, but I don't think he hates the US and he lacks the support Obama has. You can't oppose Joe Biden and be called a racist. The country would benefit from a Biden presidency (as compared to an Obama one). Also Biden has some political chops. He'd actually talk to the Republicans. Not sure if that's good or bad for us, but I do believe he'd talk.


The Senate has nothing to do with the President being impeached or not. That is completely under the authority of the House of Representatives. The Senate tries the President after he is impeached. It could be the Senate won't find him guilty, but the House passes Articles of Impeachment without any action needed by the Senate.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to subrosaDom)
Profile   Post #: 309
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 9:43:11 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
"Don't look up Ken, he'll shit your eye out".


LMFAO!!!



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 310
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 9:45:19 AM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

Where are you hunting these deer? Not in Illinois?


Probably not in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Kentucky either. Get a shotgun.

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to LetstalkboutRAP3)
Profile   Post #: 311
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 9:45:54 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Yeah, Republicans trying to impeach the President is rather laughable...

Bill Clinton was impeached for what? Lying to Congress and America for having an affair?


It doesn't really matter the subject he lied about, does it? If you lie in court, aren't you, technically, breaking the law, regardless of the lie?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 312
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 9:51:47 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Yeah, Republicans trying to impeach the President is rather laughable...

Bill Clinton was impeached for what? Lying to Congress and America for having an affair?


It doesn't really matter the subject he lied about, does it? If you lie in court, aren't you, technically, breaking the law, regardless of the lie?


Leftists keep forgetting that Bill Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harassment civil lawsuit in which he was the defendant, and that several women have accused Bill Clinton of rape

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 313
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 10:20:56 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Leftists keep forgetting that Bill Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harassment civil lawsuit in which he was the defendant, and that several women have accused Bill Clinton of rape


Accusations don't necessarily mean squat, though.

KFC was recently accused of forcing a child and her grandmother out of a location because the child's face injuries were disturbing other customers.

The Duke Lacrosse team was accused of raping a woman.

A President being accused of raping several women could very well hold the same amount of merit as either of the aforementioned accusations.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 314
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 10:25:09 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Accusations don't necessarily mean squat, though.

KFC was recently accused of forcing a child and her grandmother out of a location because the child's face injuries were disturbing other customers.

The Duke Lacrosse team was accused of raping a woman.

A President being accused of raping several women could very well hold the same amount of merit as either of the aforementioned accusations.


Though, on account of his track record Bill Clinton was a president who one could be assured would lie about such things

That he was convicted of lying under oath in a trial about his sexually harassing some girl makes the rape accusations (plural) look doubly bad







< Message edited by Sanity -- 7/13/2014 10:41:57 AM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 315
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 10:50:41 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
[ORIGINAL: subrosaDom


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

Ayn Rand was 100% pro-abortion and an atheist. Perhaps you are confusing her with Rick Santorum.

Ann rand was a punkassmotherfucking liar who tried to defraud the u.s. govt.

"punkassmotherfucking liar" -- now that is a compelling counterargument.

I am glad you recognize it as such.



And she neither tried to nor did she defraud the U.S. Government any more than she was the first person to land on Mars. Although you don't say it, perhaps you're referring to the fact that Rand accepted government benefits like Social Security. Yes, she did, since they were refunds of all the taxes she'd paid.

[b[No it was the well documented (should you choose to visit google land) attempt by her to get ss to pay for her medical treatments.

Whom do you think creates jobs? The poor? Exactly where does the money come from that funds these companies? People who made money and who have money and who take risks to make even more money.


You are abysmally ignorant. A job is created for the purpose of making the job creator money.Without an employee there is no job.
Your employee is apparently paid zero. A job is created in order to increase production or the delivery of services in response to demand. In order to create a job, money, in the form of paid-in capital (equity or debt) or increased cash flow is required. Econ and Business 101. Write me when you've taken the courses.

It would appear that you don't even live in the same zip code as a buss.101 text book.

Why is it that antithetical philosophies in geographically identical areas result in antithetical results -- i.e., West Germany and the East Germany? Could it have been the differences in the economic systems perhaps?

Perhaps you were unaware that e. germany was one of the ten top economies in the world. I believe that your bias has crippled your intellect.

As far as the Earth's being created in 6 days -- that's about the same as saying in the 1970s that the planet was facing and impending ice age and that today global warming is going to kill us all. They're both pseudo-science.

Actually it is your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion that is psuedo science.

You must be saying you do believe the Earth was created in 6 days, then.

Nope that would be you and not me. Perhaps you might find an older sibling to read what I posted and bring you up to speed.


I suggest you take a vacation with the scores of government employees who were recently revealed to have fabricated temperature data in order to "prove" global warming, reducing prior temperatures in order to make it appear we had warmed when in fact that hadn't occurred.

I would sugest that you utlize a university for your scientific studies instead of television.

Defense spending made lower? It's already low.

Obviously you are innumerate and cannot read.

Defense spending is 19% of the budget.

Why should it exceed 1%?

But if you'd like to see the "benefits" of low defense spending, I suggest you look the Britain's navy circa the late 1930s and the good that did them;

It was britains navy that saved her ass. But those who choose to learn history from the tv will forever be ignorant fools.

"As the war progressed, the Royal and Dominion Navies expanded rapidly with large construction programmes, particularly escort carriers, destroyers, corvettes, frigates, submarines, landing ships and craft." Source: http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm -- yes, the Royal Navy helped to saved their ass although the RAF was important, too. It wasn't up to par for the war, however. It saved their ass because being the largest in the world without the necessary range and capacity didn't allow it to save their ass.

Your understanding of ww2 reflects your television knowledge of history. Should you ever acquire a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade you could easily be disabused of your ignorance.
Hitler never posed a threat to gb. Hitlers primary objective was russia (if you had read his book you would have known this). Churchill had read his fucking book. Stalin had read his fucking book. World war 2 was between germany and her allies and russia. The anglo amreican aliance didn't do shit by comparison.


or you could simply look around the world today and see how our LordGodObama is perceived by our enemies (laughable) and friends (contemptible).

There are some folks who require external validation...that is simply because they are punkassmotherfuckers.

No...that would be your opinion...why don't you own it instead of trying to pimp your moronic ignorance on others?

Even Mother Jones has been critical of Obama in this regard. Those who read outside of People Magazine recognize that we are today regarded as a paper tiger.

When have we ever been otherwise? Tell me which wars the u.s. has won? Tell me what really bad ass mother fuckers did the u.s. ever fight?
Yes I heard about the jv team from king george.
Then there was that incident with the jarehead and a sailor boy named decature creating a regieme change in n.africa with hired local thugs.
Then there was the second game between our varsity and gb jv squad in which we managed to loose most of the battles , get our capitol burned and still come out (due to our skilled negotiators not our military...battle of new orleans not withstanding)with our own flag and a no harm no foul ending.
Almost all of the battles in the wars with the native americans were usually won by the native americans except when the army targeted women and children then the army won most of the time. The native americans were subdued by exterminating their food supply not by the u.s. military.
Then the war with mexico, where we brought in our own ringer to be their captain. Yes the u.s. smuggled santa ana out of cuba and into mexico.
Now in a civil war it does not matter who wins since we were fighting ourselves...oh yes more men died from illness than combat injuries.
Spanish american war was fought against another jv team.
Boxer rebellion...Armed trained military against a civilian mob....yeah right.
Ww1 Count the total dead and compar it to u.s. combat deaths please do not include figures from influenza deaths.
Veterans march on washington...Armed trained military vs. legally gathered, peacefully prosteting american citizens...yeah the soldier boys managed to kill one of them unarmed protesters.
Ww2 Again count the total dead and figure our the percentage that are u.s....tiny.
Korea Not getting anhialated is hardly winning.
Viet nam...yup the short people spanked the army's butt purple.

Absolutely nothing new about the paper tiger thingie...Not every one learns history off of the television.





But it's always refreshing to be called a moron.

I call them like I see them.

I just can't make it through the day unless that happens at least once.

It would appear that I am not the only one who notices.



No one is going to ban same-sex marriage via the constitution any more than Lister's germ theory is going to banned. That's political talk and prattle,

You think the comstock laws were just political prattle...what a fucking moron.
I think that making your case by referring to 140-year-old, horse-and-buggy era laws says more than I ever could.

Perhaps you might tell us just when those 140 year old laws were repealed? It has been less than 100 years since women were recognized as being smart enough to vote. Is this the metric you really want to pimp?


As I've said before, rather than focus on same-sex marriage, you might want to focus on shari'a advocates who think gays should be executed.


I have not focused on same sex marriage, but it does seem to bother you.
Since shiri'a law is not enforced in the u.s. why do you give a shit?



well unless of course the Muslim Brotherhood that Obama so loves

Aren't they the guys who used to be in charge in egypt and now are in the joint or are being chased by men with guns who want to kill them. And they know that their buddy obama is not doing a fucking thing to help them...yes I am sure they love him...like some men love their ex-wives

Would you have any validation for this ignorant unsubstantiated bullshit?

I'm sure you'll dismiss The American Spectator, because it's conservative, but this is actually a well-sourced article. I leave it to other readers to read this, consider the evidence and make their own judgment. http://spectator.org/articles/57483/obama-six
takes a greater part in our country in which case there will be no need to ban same-sex marriage since all gays will simply be executed. Instead of easy targets such as opponents of gay marriage, I suggest leftists focus their targets on the shari'a advocates and Muslims who want to execute gays. Just a bit of a difference there and, dressed in your niqab, it will be pretty hard to stop those executions.

who was it that told you that these folks were going to take over the u.s.?
First: how the fuck are they going to get here?
Second: Have you a clue how much over baggage wt limit charges would be on any soldiers "battle rattle" ?
Third: Dont forget to look under the bed and behind the shower curtain before you go to bed.


Just like christians want to murder those they disagree with.
Yes, it was appalling when Christians flew those planes into the World Trade Center. It's appalling when in Africa and Egypt, non-Coptic Christians murder Coptic Christians and burn down their churches to boot. Of course, statistically speaking, you can find Christians, atheists, Jews, even Buddhists who are psychotic and went out and killed someone. Not because of their religion, but because they were crazy.

A history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade could disabuse you of your ignorance of the wars that christians have waged against non christians....of christians against less than twue cwistians.



Islam, a political movement, institutionalizes the murder of infidels, Christians being among them,

Perhaps your grade has not got that far in the history book. Christians did the same.


Almost all incidents of terrorism across the globe are committed by Muslims.

Timmy mcvey was a muslim? Rudolph was a muslim? Kaczynski was a muslim?roflmfao


Christians are fleeing most countries in the Middle East and many in Africa because of murderous Muslims.

All both of them???

(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 316
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 11:22:19 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3

Where are you hunting these deer? Not in Illinois?

I was hunting in Wisconsin until the quarantine got to the area I hunted. Now if I do, and it's been a while, I go down to Kentucky. I was talking with my cousin about trying in Arkansas with him this winter but my illness makes planning something like that tricky.

(in reply to LetstalkboutRAP3)
Profile   Post #: 317
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 12:24:33 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LetstalkboutRAP3
]Semi-automatics have additional parts, which means more mass, which means the weapon accelerates backward more slowly. Slower acceleration over a given distance (stock to shoulder) means lower velocity. Kinetic energy increases linearly with mass, and exponentially with velocity. This is why semi-automatics produce less felt recoil than their manual feed counterparts, because there actually is less energy moving into the shooter. This is well established within the shooting community and supported by classical mechanics. It can be substantially less too, depending on the weapon and round in question.

finally, felt recoil. Not actual recoil. The actual recoil still occurs, correct. You admit. You just feel it differently.
The idiot who started this believes that energy magically goes away..


No, I know that work uses up energy and that this even includes working the action.
You must believe that the energy to do this magically appears and adds energy to the recoil.
PS where I grew up it was almost impossible to get a clear shot at 100 yards, woods were too thick, and back then nobody there used stands.
Your batting a thousand Robin

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 318
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 12:26:47 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've hunted Eastern whitetail for 30 odd years


Of course you have, do ya use a shotgun ? You're an expert on that and everything else on these forums. Joe Biden must be proud.



No, in my younger years .30-06 and more recently .30-30. You know actually calibers you use for deer hunting. Although if CWD doesn't stop spreading I won't be doing much more hunting since it is getting hard to find a place near me that isn't infected.

That's funny before I left Mo Ill had limited deer hunting to shot guns.
Poor sir Robin

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 319
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/13/2014 12:57:27 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: BamaD

These weapons have the down side that they come in a lighter caliber .223 (5.56 mm for the Europeans) and thus have a less effective round so they need a larger magazine.

Roflmfao.
Less effective than what?
How many rounds in a m14 magazine arent those about 30 cal? How many rounds in a bar mag?


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 320
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109