News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

NRA's enemies list.

Started by Brian37, February 14, 2013, 10:39:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jmpty

Quote from: "buttfinger"I love it how lefties call me a right-wing dick, but fanatical right-wingers call me a commie.  Nothing says "my own opinion" like the established groups thinking I belong to a different one.

I just call you an idiot fucking troll.
???  ??

buttfinger

Quote from: "Jmpty"I just call you an idiot fucking troll.
I couldn't care less what you call me.  You're a retard and clearly a liar, so your opinion means fuck-all to me.

Jmpty

Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "Jmpty"I just call you an idiot fucking troll.
I couldn't care less what you call me.  You're a retard and clearly a liar, so your opinion means fuck-all to me.

 A retard? Grow the fuck up. Lie about what? You are seriously disturbed.
???  ??

buttfinger

Quote from: "Jmpty"A retard? Grow the fuck up. Lie about what? You are seriously disturbed.
Coming from a guy who started with the ad-homs several posts ago, this is ironic as fuck.  Physician, heal thyself.

PopeyesPappy

Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"
Quote from: "buttfinger"Police issue handguns fire a larger round that has a greater impact velocity.  This argument is self-defeating in that an "assault rifle" would have done less damage.

I'm going to have to argue that one. A Winchester Ranger T-Series 127 grain +P+ 9mm (probably the hottest factory loaded 9mm) runs about 1250 fps and 441 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle of 5" barrel. A 62 grain 5.56 NATO round leaves a 20" barrel at 3100 fps with 1300 plus foot pounds of energy. The little 62 grain 5.56 is still carrying about 450 foot pounds of energy at 300 yards. That's more than the 9mm has point blank.

There is more to it than just force.  The Winchester 127 grain rounds are designed for better expansion than the 5.56 NATO full metal jacket.  In fact the military just changed the 5.56mm to increase stopping power as they are highly ineffective in close quarter situations let alone long distance.  You can't win a war if you hit your target and they keep coming at you.  On average it takes two in the chest in a tiny room in an Afghan village to put someone down.  How many do you think it'll take at 300 meters?
You said, "...round that has a greater impact velocity." You were wrong, and I pointed that out.

As far as through and throughs go velocity and yaw are everything when talking about M855's and soft tissue hits. The bullets need to either be going above 2900 fps or slightly yawed when they hit to perform in soft tissue. M4's are at a disadvantage from the start due to their lower muzzle velocity. Even something like heavy clothing slows the round down enough so that it does not fragment on impact. They can still be effective if the bullet has a slight yaw when it hits. But if a bullet is going slow and straight at impact it keeps going straight. It makes smaller temporary and permanent wound cavities. Sometimes the round was going straight, sometimes it was yawed. They were all going to slow for the design. That's why some soldiers had through and through close quarters hits and some didn't. Low velocity and inconsistent performance was the issue not some inherent advantage of pistol rounds over the 5.56.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


buttfinger

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"You were wrong,
Member identification fail.

PopeyesPappy

Sorry, guess I confused the brothers...
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


buttfinger

It's understandable, since our names are so similar.

PopeyesPappy

Less to do with names than with the similar content of your posts.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


buttfinger

Wow.  it really shouldn't be that hard to tell us apart, unless you're just skimming for strawmen.

PopeyesPappy

Strawmen? Now I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't paying any attention to names. When I read your post I thought you were him. Understandable since you were defending his post.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Aroura33

So Beavis and Butthead are the new members here?  Welcome!
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.  LLAP"
Leonard Nimoy

buttfinger

Quote from: "Aroura33"So Beavis and Butthead are the new members here?  Welcome!
Why thank you.  Glad to be here with all you fine fellows.

Thumpalumpacus

First, I'll say that I think the obvious answer it to marry technology to firearms in order to insure that only the authorized owner/user, having cleared a recurrent background check, is able to fire a particular weapon.  The guns used in the NewTown murders were stolen from the murderer's mother.  She hadn't secured them; she was an irresponsible gun owner, and paid with her life before her guns were used to murder 26 others.  Had those weapons been equipped with RFID or fingerprint interlocks on the triggers, her son would not have been so mercilessly effective on his rampage.

I know that fingerprint scanners in particular are imperfect technology, in the sense that they often misscan prints, or take too long to process a scan, but the technology can be perfected, I think.  And I think it should.

I also think that mental health background checks should be required of gun-purchasers.  If a person has been recently treated for mental illnesses which have an associated high rate of violence, they should be forbidden the right to buy a gun.  A 5150 hold or prescription to psychoactive anti-depressants, especially the MAOIs which seem to have unpredictable effects, should be a bar.  Those judgments should have an appeals process available, but that process should require the permit-applicant to show up in person in a court so that a judge may interview him personally before overturning any recommendation to bar the weapons purchase.

I don't own any guns, and never have as an adult.  I've recently moved to the country and will be buying a shotgun soon, because the nearest police station is 20 minutes away at high speed.  I'm comfortable with guns, having learned how to shoot at an early age, and having shot expert in the Air Force (40/40 at 100 yds).  I also don't think the Constitution should be amended to restrict the freedoms of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals.  Just because Joe Blow yelled fire in a theater, we should not have to clear our speech with a government agency, to my mind.

I believe that the problem of unauthorized firearms users committing crimes can be addressed without abrogating the rights of law-abiding users.  It will require a willingness to work towards the center, on the parts of extremists on both sides.  Will it happen?  I don't know.  But if it doesn't happen, the straws in the wind tell me that gun-banners  will carry the day in the end.

Quote from: "stromboli"I read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me. Assault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.

If original intent is that important, are we ready to ban abortions, then?  Those aren't mentioned anywhere in our founding documents.

While I agree with the majority of your expressed sentiment, it's only fair to point out that the First Amendment doesn't mention the Internet, and the Fourth Amendment doesn't mention hard drives.

If you wish to apply this principle to gun ownership, you must be prepared for the political blowback of conservative gun owners hoisting you upon your own petard regarding other freedoms that we hold dear, as well, with respect to their expression using modern technology.

Quote from: "Brian37"No not even then. Animals do not have the same level of thought. A spear is long and still with a blade on it still would give the man an advantage. And with the right training a man can do what bullfighters do(another barbaric event, I refuse to call it a sport).

A man could not win a fight with no weapons against those predators and a spear would give the man an advantage. A simple bowie knife would be an advantage although it would allow for close contact, that would be about as close to fair as I could come, but even with just a knife a deep stab or several deep stabs on the body will kill the animal if left untreated.

Man's weapon is his brain, which enabled him to design and build those blades, and stalk his prey.

I don't hunt, and I've never hunted, but I eat meat, and I think that for myself I ought to start hunting, if for no other reason than to remove any detachment from the fact that my meals arise from killing other living things.  I know that some hunters hunt for that reason.  

I also think you're underestimating the dangers involved in hunting with a spear.  Do you know how fast wild animals can move?  A spear requires a minimum distance for effective use.  Let a wild animal in fight-or-flight mode inside that radius and see how deadly that spear is.
<insert witty aphorism here>

buttfinger

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Strawmen? Now I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't paying any attention to names. When I read your post I thought you were him. Understandable since you were defending his post.
Face