Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
ShamWow, you ignorant slut. This is the most stupid post ever, and the bar for stupidity has been set very high by AssupLiar, BigAssSux and LittleEva. But you have surpassed them all.
We are all now a little dumber having read your ridiculous post.
Yes, it will take a while before illegal guns start disappearing from the streets, but its a start. Only those affected by the death of someone from a firearm would understand the gravity of the situation.
And I suppose you "assume" that I would not ....
................... "understand the gravity of the situation"
What does Mexico being an "underdeveloped" country have to do with shit?
I will ask you again ...
Quote:
Can I safely assume that you want to get rid of poverty in this Country (the U.S.A.)? Or at least reduce the amount of people who are living in poverty? (To put it another way) .....
If the answer is "yes" , then go to the next part of "the solution" ...
Can i also safely assume that you believe most crime is the result of poverty?
As for the "removal" of "illegal guns" .... just when do you want to start doing that? Or more correctly, when are you going to insist that LE start doing so, because all you are going to do is sit on your ass and whine about it, because they aren't ripping people's firearms from their grip as fast as you think it ought to be done. You won't be the one taking shit from anyone, because you don't have a firearm, right?
I believe all of them up to a Level III, and probably a Level IV by a 2nd round.
Consider this for a moment a full sized AR-15 chambered for a .223 round will render the round to have different penetrating characteristics than that same round being fired from a pistol chambered for 223. The reason being is the rate of twist. It's not the round in an of itself that determines penetrating capabilities but the velocity of that round. The longer barrel gives the bullet more time to achieve a greater velocity as it leaves the muzzle reducing wobble. In shorter barrels a bullet may wobble much sooner reducing it's penetrating abilities.
I know. And apparently you never will. Let me try another approach to "solving the problem" .... Can I safely assume that you want to get rid of poverty in this Country (the U.S.A.)? Or at least reduce the amount of people who are living in poverty? (To put it another way) .....
If the answer is "yes" , then go to the next part of "the solution" ...
Can i also safely assume that you believe most crime is the result of poverty?
(Like YOUR MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE ... wants to give ISIS jobs ... )
I can already see where your flawed argument is leading. It is inherently stupid (yet somehow still manages to be patronizing) and would be a gigantic waste of time. Go back, think it through, chuckle at how stupid it is. Then come back.
What does Mexico being an "underdeveloped" country have to do with shit?
I already told you what it "have to do with shit". Do you want me to repeat it. Here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanm
Again, you show your massive tendency to compare apples with oranges in order to prove your point.
Mexico is an underdeveloped country. One which you can't trust to have proper gun control laws and/or stop the black market from fueling the gun trade.
If you want a proper example, why don't you compare the U.S with the UK and/or Australia. Firearm related deaths per 100,000 in the UK and Australia COMBINED are about 10% of firearm related deaths in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
And I suppose you "assume" that I would not ....
................... "understand the gravity of the situation"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm assuming. Because you somehow consider the right to bear arms necessary to your own survival. Like it or not, you would be exactly the type of guy to bring a gun to a fistfight. Your own grandpappy would be ashamed of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
As for the "removal" of "illegal guns" .... just when do you want to start doing that? Or more correctly, when are you going to insist that LE start doing so, because all you are going to do is sit on your ass and whine about it, because they aren't ripping people's firearms from their grip as fast as you think it ought to be done. You won't be the one taking shit from anyone, because you don't have a firearm, right?
It starts exactly when you dipshits start taking your "right to bear" fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers less as a right and more as a privelege. No, not every psycho who's pissed at women should be allowed to just load up and start shooting everyone in sight. No idiot that considers himself something out of a superhero movie should be allowed to purchase firearms and then go shoot up a movie theater. I lived/grew up in the UK and ever since they banned guns their crime rates and their homicide rates from firearms have dropped tremendously and I'm sure every prevented death is a blessing to those effected (or unaffected), whether they know it or not, and it far outweighs any constitutional right you (believe yourself to) have from a piece of paper written in an entirely different era.
Consider this for a moment a full sized AR-15 chambered for a .223 round will render the round to have different penetrating characteristics than that same round being fired from a pistol chambered for 223. The reason being is the rate of twist. It's not the round in an of itself that determines penetrating capabilities but the velocity of that round. The longer barrel gives the bullet more time to achieve a greater velocity as it leaves the muzzle reducing wobble. In shorter barrels a bullet may wobble much sooner reducing it's penetrating abilities.
Jim
Consider this ... the "average" distance between a shooter (or potential shooter) and an LE officer at the time of the shooting. Then consider that even though the round does not "penetrate" through the vest into the officer's body to incapacitate him, the force of the impact will more than likely knock him or her on his or her ass with an impact that is in and of itself at least temporarily incapacitating and a second round, third, or fourth will strike at an angle into unprotected body parts resulting in a final incapacitating event. The point being that a "vest" if struck with a round to the vest's rating will merely stop the round, but not the force of the impact.
We are not talking about range practice at paper targets. It's not "academics"!
You will find that most (close to 90%) police shooting confrontations occur within 10 to 15 feet. I suppose "ballistically" you might argue that "tumbling" can begin as the round exits the muzzle, but can you agree that the degree of tumbling at 3 meters is relatively negligible when considering the penetrating capacity of that round at muzzle velocity - 3 meters of velocity reduction. As an aside ... the quality and age of the vest is also a factor.
You STILL didn't answer my question. Are you for or against private citizens being able to buy rounds that can penetrate a vest? Yes or no. I don't care if it's legal or illegal now or whether it's been that way for 30 years. Yes or no.
It's quite obvious that you do not have even the slightest idea of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. It's precisely BECAUSE the government HAS access to ANY type of rifle ammo, that WE the CITIZENS demand the same!
Since you like to ask questions, please answer one : Who or what was the 2nd Amendment designed to ensure defense against?
To an arrogant, little, condescending prick, probably so. It shows how uninformed and narrow minded you are regarding the real world.
If you want to do some social engineering, I recommend a one-way ticket to Syria, sign up with ISIS, and start helping them out of their "poverty" with a "jobs program" so they will quit burning people alive, cutting off heads, raping women, and selling children for God knows what. Enjoy yourself, and write often.
If I had "fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers," I certainly wouldn't be discussing on the internet, or any where else.
But if you want to be extreme in order to justify collecting firearms, good luck.
In the meantime, please don't go knocking on doors demanding firearms.
This is exactly what would happen if I did. LMAO.
Seems like when it actually comes to game time and backing up your word, people like you have been proven to show slightly less substance than chicken shit.
It's quite obvious that you do not have even the slightest idea of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. It's precisely BECAUSE the government HAS access to ANY type of rifle ammo, that WE the CITIZENS demand the same!
Since you like to ask questions, please answer one : Who or what was the 2nd Amendment designed to ensure defense against?
There are different schools of thought on that subject. Some say it's there to give the state the ability to protect itself against a tyrannical federal govt. That's the collective rights theory. Others argue it gives the individual the right to bear arms. That's the individual rights theory. If you look at the rest of the Constitution and observe the respect it obviously has for state's rights, as evidenced by the tenth amendment, I can see the case for collective rights. Especially considering the second amendment refers to militias, not individuals. I don't expect a nuanced or measured opinion from most gun owners. They see it the way they wish to see it and have no room for any discussion to the contrary.
Seems like when it actually comes to game time and backing up your word, people like you have been proven to show slightly less substance than chicken shit.
Every commercial round sold for hunting will penetrate a bullet proof vest. So to answer your question yes I do, as the round in question does nothing more or less than a 30/06 or .308 fired at a patrol vest. So when your banning ammo under that reasoning, your leaving the door open for the banning of all rifle ammo.
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
That's his point! He wants to regulate ALL RIFLES.... not just "assault rifles."
Mexico has done such a splendid job of reducing death by firearms!
Per capita Mexico with "gun control" has double the firearm death rate as the U.S.
The next thing the Liberals will want to do is license printing paper and the internet feeds.
Exactly!!! Miscreants like the "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion disingenuously try to deflect away from and misrepresent Odumbo's real agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin
I am going to assume your point is that a .223 round fired out of that particular firearm will penetrate a ballistics vest. If so, I am afraid there is no guarantee.
Jim
No. That is not what he's saying. He is questioning the legitimacy of the ATF's classifying that weapon as a "pistol", which is much like the Germans designating the German MP 40 -- "Maschinenpistole" -- which most of the rest of the world referred to as a "submachine gun" rather than a "pistol":
