guns should be illegal.
guns should be illegal.
I don't know if this is satire or if you are serious, but I agree with the quoted statement.
guns should be illegal. You can only kill something with a gun.
Isn't that the same basis that cocaine is illegal?
guns should be illegal.
This would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
This would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
Certainly, but why make it any easier for them? Also, what about previous law-abiding citizens who own guns who for whatever reason commit a crime?
This would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
Certainly, but why make it any easier for them? Also, what about previous law-abiding citizens who own guns who for whatever reason commit a crime?
Yes. This is correct, but it is still no reason to ban guns. That's like wanting to ban guns in the police force because a cop could shoot someone.
guns should be illegal. You can only kill something with a gun.
Isn't that the same basis that cocaine is illegal?
Reported for Harrasment.
This is a picture of me posted without my permission.
I don't live under a bridge nor am I a fearsome member of a mythical race from Norse mythology.
Reported for Harrasment.
This is a picture of me posted without my permission.
guns should be illegal.
This would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
guns should be illegal.
This would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
If guns are illegal, than yes, only criminals will own guns. durdeedur
guns should be illegal.
This would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
If guns are illegal, than yes, only criminals will own guns. durdeedur
And when that criminal breaks into your house with his illegal gun, and there you are defenseless because you are a law abiding citizen and you have no guns, and that criminal comes over and rapes your wife and possibly your children because you have no way to protect them, I wonder if you would have the same opinion then.
guns should be illegal.
This would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
If guns are illegal, than yes, only criminals will own guns. durdeedur
And when that criminal breaks into your house with his illegal gun, and there you are defenseless because you are a law abiding citizen and you have no guns, and that criminal comes over and rapes your wife and possibly your children because you have no way to protect them, I wonder if you would have the same opinion then.
Let's see, in the United States, there were 0 cases of someone breaking into a home, finding everyone defenseless rapes the wife, then possibly then possibly the children while the husband had no way to protect them.
There were several hundred people who died from gun accidents
Several hundred who died in hunting accidents (yes classified differently)
Several hundred who died in altercations involving guns
Several hundred who dies while drinking and carrying guns
If I were to calculate my risk, I would be much safer by removing a gun from both my hand and yours.
There were several hundred people who died from gun accidents
Several hundred who died in hunting accidents (yes classified differently)
Several hundred who died in altercations involving guns
Several hundred who dies while drinking and carrying guns
If I were to calculate my risk, I would be much safer by removing a gun from both my hand and yours.
Let's see, in the United States, there were 0 cases of someone breaking into a home, finding everyone defenseless rapes the wife, then possibly then possibly the children while the husband had no way to protect them.
There were several hundred people who died from gun accidents
Several hundred who died in hunting accidents (yes classified differently)
Several hundred who died in altercations involving guns
Several hundred who dies while drinking and carrying guns
If I were to calculate my risk, I would be much safer by removing a gun from both my hand and yours.
I'm not a selfish ecodamaging asshole that owns a car. I take the bus.
I don't need to trade, we can just take your guns.
You can't hug someone with a gun.
Global warming and rising oceans should rust them all into extinction soon enough.
I'm a selfish ecodamaging asshole that takes the bus.
I agree with most of what Narcberry says.
I agree with most of what Narcberry says.You've been smoked out as a huge retard. As if we didn't know that already by your freedum advocacy.
You've been smoked out as a pacifist.
Typical liberal nazi wannabe forcing your beliefs onto everyone else.
Is it not forcing beliefs onto another to take a gun and kill someone?
that doesnt follow at all with what the topic
so youre saying self-defense is an acceptable reason why they should get a gun?
If not outlawed completely, I think guns should at least be regulated a lot more heavily than they are.You're not the only one.
You're not the only one.
so youre saying self-defense is an acceptable reason why they should get a gun?
In certain cases, and then only in an interim period as we work towards a world where it is not necessary.
working towards a world with no crime is nothing but pie in the sky and nostalgia. Its not gona happen. If guns are outlawed, crimes will sky rocket. America has a right to defend themselves and their property. People these days are not gonna do the right thing and work for a living, they are going to take what they want. Lets be realistic here. Therefore it is only right to let qualified Americans to own a gun for those just in case purposes. Crime can happen anywhere, even in small hick country towns. Allowing Americans to be on the ready for those just in case purposes can only be fair.
working towards a world with no crime is nothing but pie in the sky and nostalgia. Its not gona happen. If guns are outlawed, crimes will sky rocket. America has a right to defend themselves and their property. People these days are not gonna do the right thing and work for a living, they are going to take what they want. Lets be realistic here. Therefore it is only right to let qualified Americans to own a gun for those just in case purposes. Crime can happen anywhere, even in small hick country towns. Allowing Americans to be on the ready for those just in case purposes can only be fair.
I tend to think of this more as an indication that America is fucked up than an indication that guns should be able to be owned by anybody.
Can you at least agree that, ignoring practicality, in an ideal world nobody should own a gun?
but there would still be mentally challenged/deranged people that would kill or steal just for the fun of it or because they wouldnt know better, so therefore yes, guns would be necessary.
how about hunters that kill animals to feed their families?
note- I never said that they would use a gunbut there would still be mentally challenged/deranged people that would kill or steal just for the fun of it or because they wouldnt know better, so therefore yes, guns would be necessary.
note- I never said that they would use a gun
I don't agree. If people are so far gone as to be such a danger to society, they should not be allowed the freedoms that most people are from whatever stage in childhood their problem is first noted.
[/quote]how about hunters that kill animals to feed their families?
You make a good point here. I'm afraid I shall have to eat my words. However, I still do not think just anybody should be able to buy a gun.
Ask Australians what happened to the amount of murders committed with guns after guns were banned
note- I never said that they would use a gun
neither do i, thats what a 4473 is for, which also doesnt allow mentally challenged Americans to purchase a gun. I also believe the 4473 could be stricter but it does a good job currently on people purchasing a gun. In an ideal world, the 4473 would be sufficient enough to ensure that guns are in the right hands. However, in the real world, people can obtain guns other than the legal way.
However, in a perfect world, i do agree with you that the only ones that should have guns are cops and hunters. Therefore, guns, in themselves are not evil.
Ask Australians what happened to the amount of murders committed with guns after guns were banned
Americans really are paranoid aren't they?
OMG there's gonna be criminals going around trying to rape my family and rob me and that's not to mention the bears!!1!
In my opinion, the only people to carry guns should be police, and then only for use when someone is resisting arrest.
The 2nd Amendment was added to ensure that man has the right to bear arms in order to protect against enemies, both foreign and domestic. The Gestapo was also police you know. Any civilian who they found to carry a gun back then was summarily executed. Perhaps not a bad idea eh? Or at the very least torture them a little.
and you think the world is flat--we're even
ownedand you think the world is flat--we're even
And you think people think the world is flat.
Because America is such a capitalist nation, the result is that wealthier people can afford to protect themselves better than poor people.
Guns in themselves aren't evil, They could be used in many applications outside of killing. A highly efficient hole-puncher for example. It's people's use of guns which is evil.
Its too late now everyone has guns.Most people don't own guns to protect themselves. They own them for target shooting, hunting, display pieces.
Its all borne out of paranoia anyway, all of it.
You survived 100,000 years or whatever without guns then the last 300 years you "need" them?
Bullshit.
Same applies to oil, gas, electricity, technology... man evolved with none of this therefore it is not necessary.
Guns in themselves aren't evil, They could be used in many applications outside of killing. A highly efficient hole-puncher for example. It's people's use of guns which is evil.
I agree to this. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. With knives.
And when that criminal breaks into your house with his illegal gun, and there you are defenseless because you are a law abiding citizen and you have no guns, and that criminal comes over and rapes your wife and possibly your children because you have no way to protect them, I wonder if you would have the same opinion then.
I love the threads aimed directly at the FOX News tards.
Your right I did avoid it. Even without a gun I can and would fight back. My main concern is with my family. I am gone alot and my wife feels better knowing 1. there is a gun in the house if she needs it and 2. she knows how to use it. End of story. As for kids in school shooting each other thats a problem of parenting. I had guns growing up. My first was when I was 5. I never shot anyone (or even thought about it for that matter) at school.
And when that criminal breaks into your house with his illegal gun, and there you are defenseless because you are a law abiding citizen and you have no guns, and that criminal comes over and rapes your wife and possibly your children because you have no way to protect them, I wonder if you would have the same opinion then.
Er,..... the validity of your argument is inversely proportional to the likelihood of the scenario described actually happening, but at least you yourself escaped being raped. :)
In America so many kids are bing shot at school it's obvious the problem is that not enough of these youngsters have guns to defend themselves. It should be compulsory in the USA for all school children to carry a weapon; the same type of weapon to make things equal I think. A Dan Wesson .44 or the likes would do the trick. :-\
As an afterthought, has the existence of 'evil' been established or is it just assumed? (ponerologists are invited to discuss) I think we need a definition of evil before this discussion becomes one of value? ;)
And.... I know a number of American's who are very keen on guns, and what unnerves me about them is that they seem to hope for a situation in which they can shoot someone in order to justify 'carrying'. :(
So because of a few idiots who decide to fuck things up, guns should be made freely available to the general public?
I love the threads aimed directly at the FOX News tards.
Go fuck yourself.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers
of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
See post above your last37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers
of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
I think this is good reason that guns should be illegal for EVERYONE. That means civilians, police, and military.
So because of a few idiots who decide to fuck things up, guns should be made freely available to the general public?No, we should make everyone defensless against criminals and killers.
Another objection I have to allowing people to own guns is their cost. Because America is such a capitalist nation, the result is that wealthier people can afford to protect themselves better than poor people. Why should people have more right to protection just because they have more money?Move to China you fucking penguin. Everybody has rights, wealth does not change that.
Also, why do you say "guns"? Surely if one gun isn't going to protect you, no amount of ammunition will? Why the need for more than one?
Everybody has rights, wealth does not change that.lol
Everybody has rights, wealth does not change that.Really that is why in Los Angeles County the Sheriff started a reserve deputy program only for celebrities just so he could issue CCW permits to them but the rest of us were screwed out of it
At least hypothetically under American law.Everybody has rights, wealth does not change that.lol
Everybody has rights, wealth does not change that.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers
of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
I think this is good reason that guns should be illegal for EVERYONE. That means civilians, police, and military.
At least hypothetically under American law.Everybody has rights, wealth does not change that.lol
TTIWWP
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/DSC_0335.jpg)
TTIWWP
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/DSC_0335.jpg)
Is that your way of saying you couldn't get the fully automatic versions?
Seriously, why should idiots like soksurol have guns? What good could possibly come of it?
(http://www.albertlowe.com/images/mywitness.jpg)Load it with hollow points.
(http://www.albertlowe.com/images/mywitness.jpg)Load it with hollow points.
Why are bullets measured in millimeters in a country based on the imperial system?Foreign ammunition is based on millimeters. There is also a standard form of measure for bullets.
OMFG!!!! EVIL!!!!! it's gonna kill someone, quick burn it before it jumps up and starts shooting people!!!!Not as evil as the Korean guy carrying dual 9mm pistols loaded with hollow points.
So corruption = the law?Everybody has rights, wealth does not change that.Really that is why in Los Angeles County the Sheriff started a reserve deputy program only for celebrities just so he could issue CCW permits to them but the rest of us were screwed out of it
Yeah, because turning a gun into full auto is hard, no wait it isn't. A fully automatic weapon can be purchased for less than 1 thousand dollars, if you know people.TTIWWP
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/DSC_0335.jpg)
Is that your way of saying you couldn't get the fully automatic versions?
Seriously, why should idiots like soksurol have guns? What good could possibly come of it?
If you knew anything you would know full autos cost over $10k as they have to of been made before 1986. I'm not going to even comment on the rest.
OMFG!!!! EVIL!!!!! it's gonna kill someone, quick burn it before it jumps up and starts shooting people!!!!Not as evil as the Korean guy carrying dual 9mm pistols loaded with hollow points.
(http://www.albertlowe.com/images/mywitness.jpg)Load it with hollow points.
OMFG!!!! EVIL!!!!! it's gonna kill someone, quick burn it before it jumps up and starts shooting people!!!!
and....oh wait, that already happened didn't it?Uh, yeah.
Wow, so if he didn't have hollow points he couldn't kill people?
That is the most retarded thing I have heard. A hollow point destroys itself when it hits a door. An AP round would kill people through doors. As would a full metal jacket. In fact hollow points are used to help prevent killing someone through a wall in CQC.Wow, so if he didn't have hollow points he couldn't kill people?
not through doors
That is the most retarded thing I have heard. A hollow point destroys itself when it hits a door. An AP round would kill people through doors. As would a full metal jacket. In fact hollow points are used to help prevent killing someone through a wall in CQC.Wow, so if he didn't have hollow points he couldn't kill people?
not through doors
Learn moar.
Foreign ammunition is based on millimeters. There is also a standard form of measure for bullets.
Claiming credentials to back up a false statements "validity"That is the most retarded thing I have heard. A hollow point destroys itself when it hits a door. An AP round would kill people through doors. As would a full metal jacket. In fact hollow points are used to help prevent killing someone through a wall in CQC.Wow, so if he didn't have hollow points he couldn't kill people?
not through doors
Learn moar.
I was stirring the pot, sir. Im in law enforcement, Im quite well aware what a FMJ and a hollow point can or cant do.
as far as school shootings, getting rid of guns will not solve the problem, if they really wanted to do some damage, they will find a way. If guns were outlawed, they will get a gun some other way or will resort to other means such as pipe bombs, so that argument is irrelevant.Almost a quarter of school students had access to a gun after they were banned
That is the most retarded thing I have heard. A hollow point destroys itself when it hits a door. An AP round would kill people through doors. As would a full metal jacket. In fact hollow points are used to help prevent killing someone through a wall in CQC.Wow, so if he didn't have hollow points he couldn't kill people?
not through doors
Learn moar.
I was stirring the pot, sir. Im in law enforcement, Im quite well aware what a FMJ and a hollow point can or cant do.
Why are bullets measured in millimeters in a country based on the imperial system?
Yeah, because turning a gun into full auto is hard, no wait it isn't. A fully automatic weapon can be purchased for less than 1 thousand dollars, if you know people.TTIWWP
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/DSC_0335.jpg)
Is that your way of saying you couldn't get the fully automatic versions?
Seriously, why should idiots like soksurol have guns? What good could possibly come of it?
If you knew anything you would know full autos cost over $10k as they have to of been made before 1986. I'm not going to even comment on the rest.
Turning an ar-15 to full auto is extremely illegal. Maybe even more legal than owning a full auto without a tax stamp.
Turning an ar-15 to full auto is extremely illegal. Maybe even more legal than owning a full auto without a tax stamp.
I wasn't aware there were degrees of legality.
Why would you buy an expensive AR-15 when you could get a demilitarized AK, or AK knockoff, and but a 20 dollar part to make it full auto. Also it is obviously illegal. Why would you mention that? This is a discussion of how hard/easy it is to bypass said law.Yeah, because turning a gun into full auto is hard, no wait it isn't. A fully automatic weapon can be purchased for less than 1 thousand dollars, if you know people.TTIWWP
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/DSC_0335.jpg)
Is that your way of saying you couldn't get the fully automatic versions?
Seriously, why should idiots like soksurol have guns? What good could possibly come of it?
If you knew anything you would know full autos cost over $10k as they have to of been made before 1986. I'm not going to even comment on the rest.
Turning an ar-15 to full auto is extremely illegal. Maybe even more legal than owning a full auto without a tax stamp.
Why would they sell one illegally $1,000 when they could sell it legally for over $10k? Not to mention the top ar-15 cost a few hundred over $1,000.
Why would you buy an expensive AR-15 when you could get a demilitarized AK, or AK knockoff, and but a 20 dollar part to make it full auto. Also it is obviously illegal. Why would you mention that? This is a discussion of how hard/easy it is to bypass said law.Yeah, because turning a gun into full auto is hard, no wait it isn't. A fully automatic weapon can be purchased for less than 1 thousand dollars, if you know people.TTIWWP
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/DSC_0335.jpg)
Is that your way of saying you couldn't get the fully automatic versions?
Seriously, why should idiots like soksurol have guns? What good could possibly come of it?
If you knew anything you would know full autos cost over $10k as they have to of been made before 1986. I'm not going to even comment on the rest.
Turning an ar-15 to full auto is extremely illegal. Maybe even more legal than owning a full auto without a tax stamp.
Why would they sell one illegally $1,000 when they could sell it legally for over $10k? Not to mention the top ar-15 cost a few hundred over $1,000.
And sanding down a part on an SKS switches it from semi auto to full auto. An sks runs for a couple hundred dollars. Lear2guns.
And you're the reason people commit murder with guns.
And you're the reason people commit murder with guns.bravo
Want to know why I use a knife?And you're the reason people commit murder with guns.
Honestly, I would never commit murder with a gun. I'd use poison instead, because it's less messy. Hey, I have an idea: To stop me from killing someone, let's ban every toxic agent known to man! ::)
Want to know why I use a knife?And you're the reason people commit murder with guns.
Honestly, I would never commit murder with a gun. I'd use poison instead, because it's less messy. Hey, I have an idea: To stop me from killing someone, let's ban every toxic agent known to man! ::)
The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round.Which one?
The 47 of course. I would have specified otherwise.The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round.Which one?
Then I have to disagree with you. The 47 is designed for close-quarters fights under harsh condition, without being repaired or cleaned too often. Thus, it is goes for reliability at the cost of accuracy.The 47 of course. I would have specified otherwise.The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round.Which one?
Have you shot an AK? The round the AK uses is effective at 400 meters. The Ak is also not for close quarters but a medium distance weapon. You are thinking of sub machine guns. The AK being an assault rifle has a long enough barrel to be fairly accurate.Then I have to disagree with you. The 47 is designed for close-quarters fights under harsh condition, without being repaired or cleaned too often. Thus, it is goes for reliability at the cost of accuracy.The 47 of course. I would have specified otherwise.The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round.Which one?
If you clean an Ar-15 like you are supposed too, then it will be just as reliable. I have never been burned by a gas leak. Ak is not nearly as accurate as an Ar-15. Why did Israel modify the AK to make the galil? For better accuracy. I can shoot 1" MOA or less. An AR-10 could and maybe even an AR-15 could put an ap round through an engine, whats your point?Want to know why I use a knife?And you're the reason people commit murder with guns.
Honestly, I would never commit murder with a gun. I'd use poison instead, because it's less messy. Hey, I have an idea: To stop me from killing someone, let's ban every toxic agent known to man! ::)
Also at the guy saying i'm the reason people want to ban guns. The discussion at hand was how hard it is to make an automatic weapon.
The AK is 20x more reliable than the AR. Also you don't get that nasty gas leak burning you. The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round. Combine an AK with AP rounds and you can shoot it through an engine block without deforming the round much. I know guns, I stay legal, I just know what they can do. That is the point of the constitution. Be able to do what you need, just only do it when you need.
Yeah, because turning a gun into full auto is hard, no wait it isn't. A fully automatic weapon can be purchased for less than 1 thousand dollars, if you know people.TTIWWP
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/DSC_0335.jpg)
Is that your way of saying you couldn't get the fully automatic versions?
Seriously, why should idiots like soksurol have guns? What good could possibly come of it?
If you knew anything you would know full autos cost over $10k as they have to of been made before 1986. I'm not going to even comment on the rest.
Yeah, there is no reason to ban Assault rifles like Denver does.Yeah, because turning a gun into full auto is hard, no wait it isn't. A fully automatic weapon can be purchased for less than 1 thousand dollars, if you know people.TTIWWP
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/DSC_0335.jpg)
Is that your way of saying you couldn't get the fully automatic versions?
Seriously, why should idiots like soksurol have guns? What good could possibly come of it?
If you knew anything you would know full autos cost over $10k as they have to of been made before 1986. I'm not going to even comment on the rest.
We had a point, but everyone had to go into a face first dive onto the AR's cock instead of seeing the point that I was trying to make. There is no reason to ban guns like the AR. A fully automatic weapon is easy to get a hold of. Why ban a perfectly legitimate rifle.
The conversation digressed.
what do you mean there isn't any evidence that proves less guns= less crimes? los angeles, chicago, DC, NYC, are all great examples of how well gun control works. ;Dlet us not forget that hotbed of crime, Arizona with all of their guns.
Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"I say we wall off canada and mexico. Prevent them from bringing in their sinful lifestyles of catholicism, and homosexuality. Also California will become part of canada. Washington will be sacrificed to accomplish this.
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
You would piss off all of the mexicans who believe that california is part of mexico (la raza and Mecha)Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"I say we wall off canada and mexico. Prevent them from bringing in their sinful lifestyles of catholicism, and homosexuality. Also California will become part of canada. Washington will be sacrificed to accomplish this.
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
So. Fuck em. We built a wall remember. Did I mention armed guards?You would piss off all of the mexicans who believe that california is part of mexico (la raza and Mecha)Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"I say we wall off canada and mexico. Prevent them from bringing in their sinful lifestyles of catholicism, and homosexuality. Also California will become part of canada. Washington will be sacrificed to accomplish this.
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
but these groups are already here! Hell there are people in our govenment that are already members of these groups Cruz Bustamante anyone!?That is why we deport dissenters (let them go to the country they so don't want walled off from. If america isn't good enough for them then why are they here).
Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
I fucking hate California, and guns are not illegal in Canada.Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"I say we wall off canada and mexico. Prevent them from bringing in their sinful lifestyles of catholicism, and homosexuality. Also California will become part of canada. Washington will be sacrificed to accomplish this.
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
but these groups are already here! Hell there are people in our govenment that are already members of these groups Cruz Bustamante anyone!?Then build another wall around them!
California is great it is just all of the Hippie Democrats that ruin it you get down into orange county and it a different state all togetherI fucking hate California, and guns are not illegal in Canada.Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"I say we wall off canada and mexico. Prevent them from bringing in their sinful lifestyles of catholicism, and homosexuality. Also California will become part of canada. Washington will be sacrificed to accomplish this.
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
Have you shot an AK? The round the AK uses is effective at 400 meters. The Ak is also not for close quarters but a medium distance weapon. You are thinking of sub machine guns. The AK being an assault rifle has a long enough barrel to be fairly accurate.No, I wasn't thinking about sub machine guns; there is a difference. You can't deny this, but it is understood that the AK47 is used for infantry fights and not long range shooting like the M-16 families. The AK47 actually has a maximum effective range of 800m (sight), but you wouldn't shoot an enemy infantry that far with it. I guess accuracy is relative: Vs the M-16 or its variants in range accuracy, the AK stands no chance. In close-quarter fights, the AK is a beast compared to the M-16 or its variants. In medium range, I would still go for the M16 for accuracy (longer barrel).
The AK-47 was initially designed for ease of operation and repair by glove-wearing Soviet soldiers in Arctic conditions. The large gas piston, generous clearances between moving parts, and tapered cartridge case design allow the gun to endure large amounts of foreign matter and fouling without failing to cycle. This reliability comes at the cost of accuracy, as the looser tolerances do not allow for precision and consistency. Reflecting Soviet infantry doctrine of its time, the rifle is meant to be part of massed infantry fire, not long range engagements.
The AK-47's ergonomics were often considered more comfortable than the M16's, the AK-47's shorter length and folding stock versus fixed or telescopic stock aids in close quarters combat.
Did I mention armed guards?Grunka lunka dunkity darmedguards...
Well it was. Also la raza and Mecha have nothing to do with your argument. You probably meant Aztlan.You would piss off all of the mexicans who believe that california is part of mexico (la raza and Mecha)Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"I say we wall off canada and mexico. Prevent them from bringing in their sinful lifestyles of catholicism, and homosexuality. Also California will become part of canada. Washington will be sacrificed to accomplish this.
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
There are a few, I listed the 2 I am familiar withWell it was. Also la raza and Mecha have nothing to do with your argument. You probably meant Aztlan.You would piss off all of the mexicans who believe that california is part of mexico (la raza and Mecha)Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"I say we wall off canada and mexico. Prevent them from bringing in their sinful lifestyles of catholicism, and homosexuality. Also California will become part of canada. Washington will be sacrificed to accomplish this.
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
The Mexicans were there first, you white pieces of shit.
Perhaps you pale-faces are compensating for something...The Mexicans were there first, you white pieces of shit.
but we kicked them out with our scary guns!!!!
The Mexicans were there first, you white pieces of shit.They should be happy that we let have as much as we did since at one point in the war we controlled the entire country
Shouldn't you be out burning a cross or something?The Mexicans were there first, you white pieces of shit.They should be happy that we let have as much as we did since at one point in the war we controlled the entire country
Shouldn't you be out burning a cross or something?The Mexicans were there first, you white pieces of shit.They should be happy that we let have as much as we did since at one point in the war we controlled the entire country
I vote for Mexico to become the next 51st state of the United States of America.
La raza means "the people" and Mecha is for Islam.There are a few, I listed the 2 I am familiar withWell it was. Also la raza and Mecha have nothing to do with your argument. You probably meant Aztlan.You would piss off all of the mexicans who believe that california is part of mexico (la raza and Mecha)Interesting, I leave for a few minutes and the gun activists change the conversation from "gun are evil because they only kill people" to "best ways to kill people with guns"I say we wall off canada and mexico. Prevent them from bringing in their sinful lifestyles of catholicism, and homosexuality. Also California will become part of canada. Washington will be sacrificed to accomplish this.
It's safe to say all guns should be illegal. If I were president, I wouldn't just stop at our borders, Canada and Mexico must outlaw them too. With congressional support, we can pass such a law!
I vote for Mexico to become the next 51st state of the United States of America.
As opposed to the previous 51st state?
Puerto Rico?
Guam?
The Mexicans were there first, you white pieces of shit.They should be happy that we let have as much as we did since at one point in the war we controlled the entire country
Why would I do that, does knowing the history of ones country mean that we need to burn crosses?Shouldn't you be out burning a cross or something?The Mexicans were there first, you white pieces of shit.They should be happy that we let have as much as we did since at one point in the war we controlled the entire country
Uh...is that a rhetorical question?Why would I do that, does knowing the history of ones country mean that we need to burn crosses?Shouldn't you be out burning a cross or something?The Mexicans were there first, you white pieces of shit.They should be happy that we let have as much as we did since at one point in the war we controlled the entire country
Pretty muchUh...is that a rhetorical question?Why would I do that, does knowing the history of ones country mean that we need to burn crosses?Shouldn't you be out burning a cross or something?The Mexicans were there first, you white pieces of shit.They should be happy that we let have as much as we did since at one point in the war we controlled the entire country
Offtopic.
Case and point: guns can't tuck your children in at night.
Then I have to disagree with you. The 47 is designed for close-quarters fights under harsh condition, without being repaired or cleaned too often. Thus, it is goes for reliability at the cost of accuracy.The 47 of course. I would have specified otherwise.The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round.Which one?
Then I have to disagree with you. The 47 is designed for close-quarters fights under harsh condition, without being repaired or cleaned too often. Thus, it is goes for reliability at the cost of accuracy.The 47 of course. I would have specified otherwise.The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round.Which one?
The trajectory and reach of a 7.62 round are far superior to the 5.56 round. For CQB there is no weapon more used than the H&K MP5 in all of its varieties. If you're shopping for the ultimate SMG, look no further than the FN P90 in 5.7 caliber. When loaded with SS190 rounds it will penetrate 48 layers of kevlar at 150 yards. It's produced not far from where I live. It's also highly illegal to own one.
Then I have to disagree with you. The 47 is designed for close-quarters fights under harsh condition, without being repaired or cleaned too often. Thus, it is goes for reliability at the cost of accuracy.The 47 of course. I would have specified otherwise.The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round.Which one?
The trajectory and reach of a 7.62 round are far superior to the 5.56 round. For CQB there is no weapon more used than the H&K MP5 in all of its varieties. If you're shopping for the ultimate SMG, look no further than the FN P90 in 5.7 caliber. When loaded with SS190 rounds it will penetrate 48 layers of kevlar at 150 yards. It's produced not far from where I live. It's also highly illegal to own one.
1. Yes, 7.62 will go further than the .223. But all this talk about the .223 being underpowered is crap.
2. The MP5 is a good gun, but there are others that are up there with it. The UZI being one. It was designed for CQB.
3. Civilians can own the PS 90, its semi auto.
Then I have to disagree with you. The 47 is designed for close-quarters fights under harsh condition, without being repaired or cleaned too often. Thus, it is goes for reliability at the cost of accuracy.The 47 of course. I would have specified otherwise.The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round.Which one?
The trajectory and reach of a 7.62 round are far superior to the 5.56 round. For CQB there is no weapon more used than the H&K MP5 in all of its varieties. If you're shopping for the ultimate SMG, look no further than the FN P90 in 5.7 caliber. When loaded with SS190 rounds it will penetrate 48 layers of kevlar at 150 yards. It's produced not far from where I live. It's also highly illegal to own one.
1. Yes, 7.62 will go further than the .223. But all this talk about the .223 being underpowered is crap.
2. The MP5 is a good gun, but there are others that are up there with it. The UZI being one. It was designed for CQB.
3. Civilians can own the PS 90, its semi auto.
1. It will go further faster doing more damage. Nuff said.
2. The MP5 owes its accuracy to a unique blowback system. That's why it is used by Navy Seals, SWAT, GSG9 etc. The Uzi is nowhere near that, not even in the same class. It is however very easy to clean and assemble, which is nice.
3. Over here we get nada. Strictly army and police.
Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are all U.S. Territories, they are U.S. citizens but they do not get to vote, Puerto Rico voted to become the 51st state a few years ago put it did not pass. Which is good for them because they pay even less taxes than those of us that live in the statesPuerto Rico?
I don't know much about American history, but from what I can gather from reading Wikipedia, Puerto Rico was given independence before Hawai'i joined the union.
Mexico should have been the 51st state but you know that stupid Missouri Compromise messed it all upI vote for Mexico to become the next 51st state of the United States of America.
As opposed to the previous 51st state?
Offtopic.
Case and point: guns can't tuck your children in at night.
Neither can your car. And both guns and cars are equally as dangerous.Hy don't underestimate the killing power of your stove! That is one cold hearted son of a bitch, it is either us or them
Neither can your car. And both guns and cars are equally as dangerous.Hy don't underestimate the killing power of your stove! That is one cold hearted son of a bitch, it is either us or them
If a car going faster than the speed of sound hit you, then you would be dead no questions asked.
much less triple that speed.
It is also illegal to fire a gun at someone where you live. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. This is a hypothetical about how dangerous each object is.If a car going faster than the speed of sound hit you, then you would be dead no questions asked.
I don't know what things are like where you live, but over here it isn't legal to drive faster than 110 km/h.
It is also illegal to fire a gun at someone where you live. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. This is a hypothetical about how dangerous each object is.
Do jet engines count as internal combustion. In the literal sense I think they would.
Yeah sorry the first one.
Do jet engines count as internal combustion?
Or are you being sarcastic towards my comment?
Every vehicle on earth can exceed the speed of sound. Whether the engine can force it to go faster than the speed of sound is doubtful, but also completely irrelevant to the point.It is also illegal to fire a gun at someone where you live. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. This is a hypothetical about how dangerous each object is.
Okay then, find me an internal combustion powered vehicle that can exceed the speed of sound.
Every vehicle on earth can exceed the speed of sound. Whether the engine can force it to go faster than the speed of sound is doubtful, but also completely irrelevant to the point.
I was just saying cars are more dangerous than guns. What are the odds a nuke will hit the city you live in? Do you consider a nuke more dangerous than guns?Every vehicle on earth can exceed the speed of sound. Whether the engine can force it to go faster than the speed of sound is doubtful, but also completely irrelevant to the point.
I thought I might get an answer like this. Okay then: find me a vehicle powered only by internal combustion that is likely to move faster than the speed of sound in an area with significant pedestrian activity when operated in the most common way.
I was just saying cars are more dangerous than guns. What are the odds a nuke will hit the city you live in? Do you consider a nuke more dangerous than guns?
not the question. the nuke has to be detonated first, a very rare occurance. Usually they just lay around doing nothing.I was just saying cars are more dangerous than guns. What are the odds a nuke will hit the city you live in? Do you consider a nuke more dangerous than guns?
Nukes have largely the same effect no matter where they are detonated. A car will have a different effect if it is travelling at 60 km/h to if it is travelling at 1200 km/h.
not the question. the nuke has to be detonated first, a very rare occurance. Usually they just lay around doing nothing.
Zero Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles carrying nukes have killed people. Does that make them less dangerous than guns?not the question. the nuke has to be detonated first, a very rare occurance. Usually they just lay around doing nothing.
Nukes are detonated more often than cars travel faster than sound in places where their probability of colliding with a pedestrian is not negligible.
Zero Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles carrying nukes have killed people. Does that make them less dangerous than guns?
I was just saying the car was more dangerous than the gun under the same conditions.
Well glue is a lot more dangerous than food.....Zero Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles carrying nukes have killed people. Does that make them less dangerous than guns?
I was just saying the car was more dangerous than the gun under the same conditions.
That's like saying that glue is more likely to kill you than food if you eat it.
Well glue is a lot more dangerous than food.....
Though if you mean elmer glue, it is not toxic, eat away.
and most people don't shoot themselves. I fail to see your point.Well glue is a lot more dangerous than food.....
Though if you mean elmer glue, it is not toxic, eat away.
The point is that most people don't shove glue into their mouth three times a day.
and most people don't shoot themselves. I fail to see your point.
So you agree cars are more dangerous than guns?
Glue is non toxic. Choking on food kills more people than ingesting glue ever could. Reverse the example and it will make sense. Trolling with you sucks.and most people don't shoot themselves. I fail to see your point.
So you agree cars are more dangerous than guns?
Only in the sense and to the extent that I agree that glue is more dangerous than food.
Glue is non toxic. Choking on food kills more people than ingesting glue ever could. Reverse the example and it will make sense. Trolling with you sucks.
Ok, so cars are more dangerous than guns in the same way as drinking petrol is more dangerous than food. I can agree to that.Glue is non toxic. Choking on food kills more people than ingesting glue ever could. Reverse the example and it will make sense. Trolling with you sucks.
Alright, then replace "glue" with "petrol". Or, if you are American and therefore wrong, "gas".
Ok, so cars are more dangerous than guns in the same way as drinking petrol is more dangerous than food. I can agree to that.
Okay sense guns have no conciousness they can't be evil but I'm assuming you mean the use of guns is evil.Did he plan to kill you? Could you have just shot him in the leg and left him alive? Did you do something to provoke him, such as breaking into his home and harming his family? Are you satan?
In that case. If a man breaks into my home with every intention of harming me and my family and I shoot him dead in self defense, is that evil?
In all cases where my family is in danger I assume the worst. I wouldn't know whether he had planned to kill unless he blantantly stated it. Either way I'd probably kill him. Why? In Louisiana (aka Lousyana) you can break into someone's home, be shot in the leg or you can just slip in some water on their kitchen floor and you have the right to sue them. If that's not the dumbest law I've ever heard. Regardless, in my eyes if you mean to harm my family, death or not, I'd kill to protect them.Okay sense guns have no conciousness they can't be evil but I'm assuming you mean the use of guns is evil.Did he plan to kill you? Could you have just shot him in the leg and left him alive? Did you do something to provoke him, such as breaking into his home and harming his family? Are you satan?
In that case. If a man breaks into my home with every intention of harming me and my family and I shoot him dead in self defense, is that evil?
Answer these questions then i can decide if that would be evil.
yeah, asking narc legitimate, logical questions about guns, is stupid because he just ignores them. i've already tried in this thread, only flaming, trolling, and off-topic crap get a response from narc.LOL. I've noticed a trend. So far I haven't seen much of anything to back up any of his "facts". But hey, I figured I'd give it a go. ;)
Even a 1973 Lime Green Pinto?Every vehicle on earth can exceed the speed of sound. Whether the engine can force it to go faster than the speed of sound is doubtful, but also completely irrelevant to the point.It is also illegal to fire a gun at someone where you live. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. This is a hypothetical about how dangerous each object is.
Okay then, find me an internal combustion powered vehicle that can exceed the speed of sound.
You are obviously not a god fearing christian. Therefor all actions by you are evil. You are denied all the best ultrasex.In all cases where my family is in danger I assume the worst. I wouldn't know whether he had planned to kill unless he blantantly stated it. Either way I'd probably kill him. Why? In Louisiana (aka Lousyana) you can break into someone's home, be shot in the leg or you can just slip in some water on their kitchen floor and you have the right to sue them. If that's not the dumbest law I've ever heard. Regardless, in my eyes if you mean to harm my family, death or not, I'd kill to protect them.Okay sense guns have no conciousness they can't be evil but I'm assuming you mean the use of guns is evil.Did he plan to kill you? Could you have just shot him in the leg and left him alive? Did you do something to provoke him, such as breaking into his home and harming his family? Are you satan?
In that case. If a man breaks into my home with every intention of harming me and my family and I shoot him dead in self defense, is that evil?
Answer these questions then i can decide if that would be evil.
Let's also assume that I've never met this man before in my life. He's simply breaking in to a random home for personal gains whether it be theft, pleasure from torturing and/or killing us, or just for sport.
And lastly, LOL, I don't really believe in Satan and do not recall any converstions with celestial beings so I'd have to say no.
No, after reaching 65 miles per hour, colliding with an air particle would cause you to burst into flames.Even a 1973 Lime Green Pinto?Every vehicle on earth can exceed the speed of sound. Whether the engine can force it to go faster than the speed of sound is doubtful, but also completely irrelevant to the point.It is also illegal to fire a gun at someone where you live. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. This is a hypothetical about how dangerous each object is.
Okay then, find me an internal combustion powered vehicle that can exceed the speed of sound.
No, after reaching 65 miles per hour, colliding with an air particle would cause you to burst into flames.
Pretty sure it would still burst into flamesNo, after reaching 65 miles per hour, colliding with an air particle would cause you to burst into flames.
What if you were in a vacuum?
Pretty sure it would still burst into flames
Except I disagree I dont think it would hit 65mph (around 100kmh you you others) before it burst into flames
You are really underestimating the explosive power of a pinto.Pretty sure it would still burst into flames
Except I disagree I dont think it would hit 65mph (around 100kmh you you others) before it burst into flames
Tell me, what is the speed of sound in a vacuum?
You are really underestimating the explosive power of a pinto.
I think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pintoYou are really underestimating the explosive power of a pinto.
How does something burst into flames without any oxygen about?
Then I have to disagree with you. The 47 is designed for close-quarters fights under harsh condition, without being repaired or cleaned too often. Thus, it is goes for reliability at the cost of accuracy.The 47 of course. I would have specified otherwise.The AK is a perfectly accurate weapon with a much larger round.Which one?
The trajectory and reach of a 7.62 round are far superior to the 5.56 round. For CQB there is no weapon more used than the H&K MP5 in all of its varieties. If you're shopping for the ultimate SMG, look no further than the FN P90 in 5.7 caliber. When loaded with SS190 rounds it will penetrate 48 layers of kevlar at 150 yards. It's produced not far from where I live. It's also highly illegal to own one.
1. Yes, 7.62 will go further than the .223. But all this talk about the .223 being underpowered is crap.
2. The MP5 is a good gun, but there are others that are up there with it. The UZI being one. It was designed for CQB.
3. Civilians can own the PS 90, its semi auto.
1. It will go further faster doing more damage. Nuff said.
2. The MP5 owes its accuracy to a unique blowback system. That's why it is used by Navy Seals, SWAT, GSG9 etc. The Uzi is nowhere near that, not even in the same class. It is however very easy to clean and assemble, which is nice.
3. Over here we get nada. Strictly army and police.
1. To bad you cant hit shit with an ak at those distances.
2. The uzi is actually really accurate. Its bolt allows for a longer barrel.
3. Can't help you there.
I think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pinto
The pinto would find a way, it has found a way to burst into flames ina every other situation so I am sure it would be able to do it thereI think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pinto
This does not provide a solution to how something made primarily of iron can spontaneously burst into flames in an oxygen-free environment.
The pinto would find a way, it has found a way to burst into flames ina every other situation so I am sure it would be able to do it there
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/7/7c/Car_explosion.jpg/300px-Car_explosion.jpg)The pinto would find a way, it has found a way to burst into flames ina every other situation so I am sure it would be able to do it there
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/7/7c/Car_explosion.jpg/300px-Car_explosion.jpg)
I think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pinto
This does not provide a solution to how something made primarily of iron can spontaneously burst into flames in an oxygen-free environment.
12Pretty sure it would still burst into flames
Except I disagree I dont think it would hit 65mph (around 100kmh you you others) before it burst into flames
Tell me, what is the speed of sound in a vacuum?
Untrue. High explosives will do so easily.I think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pinto
This does not provide a solution to how something made primarily of iron can spontaneously burst into flames in an oxygen-free environment.
gasoline won't burst into flames in an oxygen-free enviroment. neither will anything else
Really? I don't see any oxygen in the picture(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/7/7c/Car_explosion.jpg/300px-Car_explosion.jpg)
That looks like it's burning in oxygen to me.
Really? I don't see any oxygen in the picture
show me the oxygenReally? I don't see any oxygen in the picture
I don't see a lack of oxygen.
In a fireball there usually is very little oxygen.Really? I don't see any oxygen in the picture
I don't see a lack of oxygen.
show me the oxygen
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
Really? what does this have to do with oxygen? I breathe in the element wind. It sustains my motion.Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
Make sure you are breathing. If you don't die, then yes.
no that is nitrogen, oxygen is just made up by the conspiracy to make a boat load of moneyDo you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
Make sure you are breathing. If you don't die, then yes.
1. Depends on who's doing the shooting.
2. The Uzi is notoriously inaccurate. Only the carabine model has a longer barrel.
3. That's ok. I sold my guns years ago. Knives are way cooler.
Untrue. High explosives will do so easily.I think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pinto
This does not provide a solution to how something made primarily of iron can spontaneously burst into flames in an oxygen-free environment.
gasoline won't burst into flames in an oxygen-free enviroment. neither will anything else
There are many sorts of flame that are not due to oxidization.
Also the pinto always explodes. No matter what.
Really? I don't see any oxygen in the picture(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/7/7c/Car_explosion.jpg/300px-Car_explosion.jpg)
That looks like it's burning in oxygen to me.
It is on the other side of the explosionReally? I don't see any oxygen in the picture(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/7/7c/Car_explosion.jpg/300px-Car_explosion.jpg)
That looks like it's burning in oxygen to me.
I don't see any Pintos either.
Untrue. High explosives will do so easily.I think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pinto
This does not provide a solution to how something made primarily of iron can spontaneously burst into flames in an oxygen-free environment.
gasoline won't burst into flames in an oxygen-free enviroment. neither will anything else
There are many sorts of flame that are not due to oxidization.
Also the pinto always explodes. No matter what.
fire and explosions are two different things. you can't get fire without oxygen. you can blow shit up without fire.
Untrue. High explosives will do so easily.I think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pinto
This does not provide a solution to how something made primarily of iron can spontaneously burst into flames in an oxygen-free environment.
gasoline won't burst into flames in an oxygen-free enviroment. neither will anything else
There are many sorts of flame that are not due to oxidization.
Also the pinto always explodes. No matter what.
fire and explosions are two different things. you can't get fire without oxygen. you can blow shit up without fire.
This is sodium and water. No oxygen required.
(http://homepage.mac.com/schrier/.Pictures/pyrophoto/na1.jpeg)
This reaction does not require it though.Untrue. High explosives will do so easily.I think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pinto
This does not provide a solution to how something made primarily of iron can spontaneously burst into flames in an oxygen-free environment.
gasoline won't burst into flames in an oxygen-free enviroment. neither will anything else
There are many sorts of flame that are not due to oxidization.
Also the pinto always explodes. No matter what.
fire and explosions are two different things. you can't get fire without oxygen. you can blow shit up without fire.
This is sodium and water. No oxygen required.
(http://homepage.mac.com/schrier/.Pictures/pyrophoto/na1.jpeg)
there's oxygen in the air, idiot
You ever seen magnesium burn?Untrue. High explosives will do so easily.I think you are from australia so imagine a really crappy version of the Lada and tada you have a pinto
This does not provide a solution to how something made primarily of iron can spontaneously burst into flames in an oxygen-free environment.
gasoline won't burst into flames in an oxygen-free enviroment. neither will anything else
There are many sorts of flame that are not due to oxidization.
Also the pinto always explodes. No matter what.
fire and explosions are two different things. you can't get fire without oxygen. you can blow shit up without fire.
I use the word fire to mean rapid oxidation. I also do not understand that the sodium water reaction has nothing to do with the oxygen in the water but with the actual water itself. Please flame me.That is quite alright. I do not feel the need to flame you. You simply misunderstand the concept. *pats head*
you're a moron, I say because I don't understand you. Thank you for correcting my atrocious grammar.It is quite alright young man. Teaching is my calling. *pats head*
-removed because you are smarter than me and would edit it to make since-did it anyways.
-removed because you are smarter than me and would edit it to make since-i did it because i have nothing better to do than be a complete moron
Wow copying what I am doing, except at a lower level. I was correcting your posts, you are just throwing out ad hominums. So sad. You can watch me do it, then still fail to emulate me.I can be big boy too?-removed because you are smarter than me and would edit it to make since-i did it because i have nothing better to do than be a complete moron
censored out of idiocy.A cave troll is a D&D character. You are probably not calling me a strong creature that regenerates and is weak to fire.
There are exothermic reactions that do not require oxygen.kisses you for not needing an edit.
Thats because oxygen doesn't exist in FET. Just like gravity.Yeah in Dr. Nobottoms book "Air is not O2" he clearly shows that if oxygen was on earth the entire planet would be covered in rust because metal can rust if there is air and water. He goes on to show that mars is full of oxygen becuase of all the rust that turned the planet its present color
There are exothermic reactions that do not require oxygen.kisses you for not needing an edit.
Nope, only oxygen burns. Reread the noobs posts.This is wrong a few times.
oxygen does burn, but i know oxygen isn't the only thing that does burn.
(if you don't believe this light a match in front of an oxygen tank hose.
So O2 + O2--> O4?
You are stupid.
So O2 + O2--> O4?You are stupid.
You need 3 things to make a fire
oxygen, heat, and fuel.
Some times 2 of those can be one.
Do you really think I believe that equation to be true?
Oxygen cannot burn by itself.
Burning doesn't have to include oxygen.
You are stupid.
You need 3 things to make a fire
oxygen, heat, and fuel.
Some times 2 of those can be one.
Burning doesn't have to include oxygen.
Oxygen cannot burn by itself.A true statement.
Burning doesn't have to include oxygen.A true statement.
You are stupid.A false statement. You are the one with the wrong facts.
CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O
CH2S + 6F2 → CF4 + 2HF + SF6
You need 3 things to make a fire
oxygen, heat, and fuel.
Some times 2 of those can be one.
Burning doesn't have to include oxygen.
Correct. Chemical burns do not. But fire does.
Oxygen cannot burn by itself.A true statement.Burning doesn't have to include oxygen.A true statement.
You are stupid.A false statement. You are the one with the wrong facts.
Should I point out the obvious or should I go to wiki? Maybe both?
1. A chemical burn.
2. wikiQuote from: wikiCH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O
CH2S + 6F2 → CF4 + 2HF + SF6
You have an IQ of a 12 year old and still won't look up anything.
Your point being?
You have an IQ of a 12 year old and still won't look up anything.
You have an IQ of a 12 year old and still won't look up anything.
Why can oxygen not burn if burning does not require oxygen?
Wow you are retarded. Burning is fuel reacting with an oxidizer. So I ask, how is oxygen going to burn by itself?
You have an IQ of a 12 year old and still won't look up anything.
Why can oxygen not burn if burning does not require oxygen?
Ok we agree, you are retarded for quoting my true statements and claiming them as false.Wow you are retarded. Burning is fuel reacting with an oxidizer. So I ask, how is oxygen going to burn by itself?
It isn't.
Ok we agree, you are retarded for quoting my true statements and claiming them as false.
Oxygen cannot burn by itself.Burning doesn't have to include oxygen.You are stupid.
Where did I say they were false?
Give it up. You quoted two of my links because you thought they were false and then called me stupid.
So O2 + O2--> O4?You are stupid.
Do you really think I believe that equation to be true?
Oxygen cannot burn by itself.
Well....Give it up. You quoted two of my links because you thought they were false and then called me stupid.
I would have to be a total moron to think those statements were false.
And porn.The internet can be used for other things, I thought that this site was just to look at til the Chafing went away
ow, i hate chafing.it is a nice looking dish
On an infinite timeline, the probability that a forum will unanimously agree that guns are evil and then discuss the chemical requirements for fire is 1.
So when did an infinite amount of time pass on this site? dumbass.On an infinite timeline, the probability that a forum will unanimously agree that guns are evil and then discuss the chemical requirements for fire is 1.
and yet it hasn't happened here. odd. i think your math is wrong, and you are a dumbass.
I capitalize the first words in sentences, and use proper spelling. Methinks you the twat.
So when did an infinite amount of time pass on this site? dumbass.On an infinite timeline, the probability that a forum will unanimously agree that guns are evil and then discuss the chemical requirements for fire is 1.
and yet it hasn't happened here. odd. i think your math is wrong, and you are a dumbass.
I capitalize the first words in sentences, and use proper spelling. Methinks you the twat.
wow, criticizing spelling and capitalization on the internet, you must feel special ;).
Ok. So log off. When an infinite amount of time has passed. Log back on.So when did an infinite amount of time pass on this site? dumbass.On an infinite timeline, the probability that a forum will unanimously agree that guns are evil and then discuss the chemical requirements for fire is 1.
and yet it hasn't happened here. odd. i think your math is wrong, and you are a dumbass.
good point, i guess i'll have to wait awhile before its true.......
Well....
Well....
I shall take your one word response followed by an ellipsis with a 33% bonus as a concession that I am correct.
Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.
Oh yeah, you never did explain where the earth gets the energy to accelerate all matter in the entire universe for billions of years ongoing.
Maybe you should look at my sig.
No, it does. Something about you being a total moron.Maybe you should look at my sig.
I am familiar with what is in your sig. I did type it, after all. It is also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Oh yeah, you never did explain where the earth gets the energy to accelerate all matter in the entire universe for billions of years ongoing.
Maybe it's the same place the UA pulls its infinite energy.
Oh yeah, you never did explain where the earth gets the energy to accelerate all matter in the entire universe for billions of years ongoing.
Maybe it's the same place the UA pulls its infinite energy.
The UA has only accelerated the earth (a finite amount of matter) for a finite time. This means not infinite.
Compare with RET matter that accelerates all matter (maybe infinite, maybe finite) since the beginning of time, to the end of time (an infinite timeframe). This means infinite.
So RET earth needs infinite energy, FET earth does not.
Your cute.I'm going to bed.
It doesn't matter how big a number is, if it is finite it is not anywhere near infinite or "practically infinite".
Your argument is "practically correct" in the sense that it is not.
Oh yeah, you never did explain where the earth gets the energy to accelerate all matter in the entire universe for billions of years ongoing.
When you can't answer a direct question, ask a new one with no relevance to the topic at hand.Oh yeah, you never did explain where the earth gets the energy to accelerate all matter in the entire universe for billions of years ongoing.
Oh yeah, you never did explain where the earth gets the energy to accelerate all matter in the entire universe for billions of years ongoing.
The earth doesn't need to give energy to spacetime.
Oh yeah, you never did explain where the earth gets the energy to accelerate all matter in the entire universe for billions of years ongoing.
Move over conservation of energy, we have ~sPACetime~
Move over conservation of energy, we have ~sPACetime~
How much work does spacetime do?
I capitalize the first words in sentences, and use proper spelling. Methinks you the twat.
wow, criticizing spelling and capitalization on the internet, you must feel special ;).
wow, being unable to communicate yourself properly, you must feel stupid ;).
Ok. So log off. When an infinite amount of time has passed. Log back on.So when did an infinite amount of time pass on this site? dumbass.On an infinite timeline, the probability that a forum will unanimously agree that guns are evil and then discuss the chemical requirements for fire is 1.
and yet it hasn't happened here. odd. i think your math is wrong, and you are a dumbass.
good point, i guess i'll have to wait awhile before its true.......
Move over conservation of energy, we have ~sPACetime~
How much work does spacetime do?
Lets see, it has, without consuming any energy, accelerated all the matter in the universe for an infinite period of time. Doing the simple mat in my head and... yup infinite work, with 0 energy.
Wow. Obvious is OBVIOUS, and he still doesn't get it. A round of applause, sokarul. Good show.
Move over conservation of energy, we have ~sPACetime~
How much work does spacetime do?
Lets see, it has, without consuming any energy, accelerated all the matter in the universe for an infinite period of time. Doing the simple mat in my head and... yup infinite work, with 0 energy.
Well if there is zero force you have zero work which requires zero kinetic energy.
Also if you are going to argue. Stop posting stuff you know is untrue.
If you give a redneck a gun, their just likely to shoot each other when drunk.
Still, not compelling enough to legalize gun ownership.
If you give a redneck a gun, their just likely to shoot each other when drunk.
Still, not compelling enough to legalize gun ownership.
Nobody needs a gun to get to work
Nobody needs a gun to get to work, your comparison is republican bs.
your comparison is republican bs.
I love being a rightwing nutjob.What do you think of my take on it? ;)
Oscar Wilde, the republican gun nut. Have you ever seen anyone more conservative than Oscar Wilde?I love being a rightwing nutjob.What do you think of my take on it? ;)
I support gun possession; an armed proletariat is a strong proletariat.I say this to every gun-toter I meet. To see their faces light up and then violently recoil in the same instant is hilarious. Every time.
I support gun possession; an armed proletariat is a strong proletariat.I say this to every gun-toter I meet. To see their faces light up and then violently recoil in the same instant is hilarious. Every time.
Did you just post that after wiki-ing "proletariat"? ::)Ok correct me if I'm wrong(which is about a 98% chance) You are an armed working class man that wants to overthrow the government?I support gun possession; an armed proletariat is a strong proletariat.I say this to every gun-toter I meet. To see their faces light up and then violently recoil in the same instant is hilarious. Every time.
Did you just post that after wiki-ing "proletariat"? ::)Ok correct me if I'm wrong(which is about a 98% chance) You are an armed working class man that wants to overthrow the government?I support gun possession; an armed proletariat is a strong proletariat.I say this to every gun-toter I meet. To see their faces light up and then violently recoil in the same instant is hilarious. Every time.
Your guess was pretty much accurate to what I was insinuating, I was just disappointed in your lack of accepting the bait.
I guess this is one of those times when someone is just too ignorant to be trolled. :-X
In former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, classical education has benefit of you!Your guess was pretty much accurate to what I was insinuating, I was just disappointed in your lack of accepting the bait.
I guess this is one of those times when someone is just too ignorant to be trolled. :-X
Why am I ignorant? Because I don't know the meaning of some word used by the father of communism? Oh the shame. :-[
Guns only exist because the bible endorses them. Fucking religion destroying the entirety of human existence.
Guns only exist because the bible endorses them. Fucking religion destroying the entirety of human existence.
Genesis 1:169 And the lord said let there be fully automatic weapons. And there was and He saw that they were good. 170. And the Lord told Adam do not be ashamed of your weapons, flaunt them for all to see.
PTEW
PTEW
PTEW
PTEW
(http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/4214/1210438314451nt7.jpg)guns should be illegal.
This would only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
If guns are illegal, than yes, only criminals will own guns. durdeedur
I work in a "rough area" and despite the shootings that happen in this neighborhood, I cannot justify the need to carry a firearm to work.
Having a holstered firearm won't do me much good when a drive-by is over before I realized it was a drive-by. So, do people need to chase after these vehicles and and expose themselves and more citizens to danger?
I support gun possession; an armed proletariat is a strong proletariat.
proletariat means the majority.Your guess was pretty much accurate to what I was insinuating, I was just disappointed in your lack of accepting the bait.
I guess this is one of those times when someone is just too ignorant to be trolled. :-X
Why am I ignorant? Because I don't know the meaning of some word used by the father of communism? Oh the shame. :-[
Hey I am all for you overthrowing the government. It ain't going to work worth a shit, but good luck with that. Let me know how it turns out. David Koresh and Randy Weaver might have some pointers for ya.
I work in a "rough area" and despite the shootings that happen in this neighborhood, I cannot justify the need to carry a firearm to work.
Having a holstered firearm won't do me much good when a drive-by is over before I realized it was a drive-by. So, do people need to chase after these vehicles and and expose themselves and more citizens to danger?
why create a new topic? it's not like this one is being used to discuss the supposed "evilness" of guns. or very many things gun-related. i say feel free to start a discussion on the "evilness" of cars in this thread.
Man I will blow yo fuckin' head off... if I could afford it.
Exactly. Like I'd come up with that idea.QuoteMan I will blow yo fuckin' head off... if I could afford it.
what about deer? they cause a lot of car crashes every year. we should make deer illegal. houses burn down all the time, maybe we should outlaw houses.They are the most dangerous animal in the world
what about deer? they cause a lot of car crashes every year. we should make deer illegal. houses burn down all the time, maybe we should outlaw houses.They are the most dangerous animal in the world
He is on comedy central right now (at least on the west coast of the U.S.)He is on comedy central right now (at least on the west coast of the U.S.)what about deer? they cause a lot of car crashes every year. we should make deer illegal. houses burn down all the time, maybe we should outlaw houses.
If you ever miss one with a gun, slow the bullet down to 55MPH, put some headlights on it and a horn... The deer will actually jump in front of the bullet.
$500 says cbarnett is about to post something really retarded.You mean something like "Narcberry puts forth well thought out arguments"?
He is on comedy central right now (at least on the west coast of the U.S.)He is on comedy central right now (at least on the west coast of the U.S.)what about deer? they cause a lot of car crashes every year. we should make deer illegal. houses burn down all the time, maybe we should outlaw houses.
If you ever miss one with a gun, slow the bullet down to 55MPH, put some headlights on it and a horn... The deer will actually jump in front of the bullet.
it is his turn at the momentHe is on comedy central right now (at least on the west coast of the U.S.)He is on comedy central right now (at least on the west coast of the U.S.)what about deer? they cause a lot of car crashes every year. we should make deer illegal. houses burn down all the time, maybe we should outlaw houses.
If you ever miss one with a gun, slow the bullet down to 55MPH, put some headlights on it and a horn... The deer will actually jump in front of the bullet.
Blue Collar ftw.
yeah like a sister. Go get some!I'm in a dorm. I'm not related to any girls here.
Eww I've been conversing with a poor kid.Yes, like every college kid on earth I am poor. it sucks, it's just the way it is though.
I hope by now everyone has written their senator.wrote and asked for a ban of narcberry, but then again we have comrads Boxer and Fienstein here so I am not sure how much good it will do, but they do have CCW permits so go figure, hypocrites anyone
Correct. If you're gonna ban guns, you might as well ban knives. And I don't mean combat knives or switchblades, but all knives. Kitchen knives, letter openers, fishing knives, pen knives, scalpels. They kill people, you know.
Well, you could say the same thing about a knife.well not if everybody carried one
Trust me, pocket knives are bad enough.
I believe everyone should have a 6 inch blade on them at all times. How likely are you to try and rape a chick that you know has a blade? How likely are you to try and mug that dude when he could put a couple inches of hardened steal into your liver?
No, I do want to hear it. This proves my point. No amount of legislation on any sort of weaponry is going to significantly reduce crime. Criminals will find a way. People die in prison too, and I'm rather sure that there are few firearms in the posession of convicts.Trust me, pocket knives are bad enough.
I know you don't want to hear it, but 9/11 was executed with box cutters. Get rid of those fucking things as well.
No, I do want to hear it. This proves my point. No amount of legislation on any sort of weaponry is going to significantly reduce crime. Criminals will find a way. People die in prison too, and I'm rather sure that there are few firearms in the posession of convicts.Trust me, pocket knives are bad enough.
I know you don't want to hear it, but 9/11 was executed with box cutters. Get rid of those fucking things as well.