Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Gun Control

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 20 ... 36, 37, 38, 39  Next
AuthorMessage
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/16/2016, 4:43 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I’ve always acknowledged that military forces, special ops and SWAT teams use military spec assault weapons. However, they use the fully automatic versions.

So what?  Isn't their version "selective fire" capable?

Are you saying that SWAT runs around using only the "fully automatic" capability?  I seriously doubt that's the case.  In fact, I suspect that they use the single shot capability the vast majority of the time.  I think that is highly relevant to the discussion.


I'm not saying that the burst or full auto doesn't come in handy at times, but if their weapon is mostly used as "one trigger pull, one shot," then the fact that their weapon is a fully automatic version is largely irrelevant, at least in this context.



The mode in which the military uses the weapon, either single shot or full-auto, is irrelevant. The relevant point is that the fully automatic version is available to only law enforcement and the military (with exceptions for federally-licensed firearm dealers), and possession by unlicensed civilians is illegal.
Those who attempt to convey the impression that the civilian version of the AR-15 functions identically to the version of that weapon used by the military are straight-up fucking liars.

No, the NRA and gun worshiping lunatics like you are straight up fucking liars.
People that have actually worn  the uniform and served I know have told me they were trained to use their fully automatic weapons in the single shot mode because it's far more accurate and doesn't waste ammo.
THEY say the semi auto version is just as deadly as the full auto military version. Full auto if ever is hardly ever used.
In other words, you and yours are like said I before, full of shit.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/16/2016, 9:04 pm

Scorpion wrote:
  ... because again, as you're so fond of saying... "one trigger pull, one shot."


Yes, I'm fond of saying that, because it proves my point - the civilian version of the AR-15 is no different than an ordinary hunting rifle.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/16/2016, 9:08 pm

edge540 wrote:
 
People that have actually worn  the uniform and served I know have told me they were trained to use their fully automatic weapons in the single shot mode because it's far more accurate and doesn't waste ammo.
THEY say the semi auto version is just as deadly as the full auto military version.

Based upon that reasoning, an ordinary semi-auto hunting rifle is just as deadly as the full-auto military version of the AR-15.
Are you calling for a ban on those hunting rifles?
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/16/2016, 9:42 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
  ... because again, as you're so fond of saying... "one trigger pull, one shot."


Yes, I'm fond of saying that, because it proves my point - the civilian version of the AR-15 is no different than an ordinary hunting rifle.

Yeah. Well I don't know what kind of hunter shoots game with a rifle  fitted with a high capacity magazine that can fire... oh lets say 20 shots in 9 seconds, just as an example.  To me, that's not hunting. That's just disgusting... and no hunter that I've ever known would even consider doing such a thing.

You've never actually hunted, have you?

And no, you've actually proven my point. because as I pointed out, once you eliminate the auto capability, you're left with a weapon that has exactly the same capabilities as the one that the military or SWAT uses... and that's what makes it an assault weapon.

Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/17/2016, 6:33 am

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
 
People that have actually worn  the uniform and served I know have told me they were trained to use their fully automatic weapons in the single shot mode because it's far more accurate and doesn't waste ammo.
THEY say the semi auto version is just as deadly as the full auto military version.

Based upon that reasoning, an ordinary semi-auto hunting rifle is just as deadly as the full-auto military version of the AR-15.
Are you calling for a ban on those hunting rifles?

Been there, done that, see page 35.
You have dementia?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/17/2016, 8:22 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
 
People that have actually worn  the uniform and served I know have told me they were trained to use their fully automatic weapons in the single shot mode because it's far more accurate and doesn't waste ammo.
THEY say the semi auto version is just as deadly as the full auto military version.

Based upon that reasoning, an ordinary semi-auto hunting rifle is just as deadly as the full-auto military version of the AR-15.
Are you calling for a ban on those hunting rifles?

Been there, done that, see page 35.
You have dementia?
It's sad,isn't it? He's dug himself into a thoroughly embarrassing hole and yet he keeps right on digging. I finally decided to use the Sleep button rather than humiliate him any longer. Can someone please lock the thread before he hurts himself further?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/17/2016, 8:34 am

Scorpion wrote:
  .... once you eliminate the auto capability, you're left with a weapon that has exactly the same capabilities as the one that the military or SWAT uses... and that's what makes it an assault weapon.



Once you eliminate the auto capability, you're left with a weapon that has exactly the same capabilities as the one that a hunter uses... and that's what makes it a hunting rifle.
You stated earlier in the thread that you understand the difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon.
Based upon your most recent post, it's not clear that you actually do.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/17/2016, 10:14 am

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
  .... once you eliminate the auto capability, you're left with a weapon that has exactly the same capabilities as the one that the military or SWAT uses... and that's what makes it an assault weapon.




You stated earlier in the thread that you understand the difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon.
Based upon your most recent post, it's not clear that you actually do.

Based upon what, exactly? If you actually have something to say, then say it.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/17/2016, 10:57 am

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
  .... once you eliminate the auto capability, you're left with a weapon that has exactly the same capabilities as the one that the military or SWAT uses... and that's what makes it an assault weapon.




You stated earlier in the thread that you understand the difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon.
Based upon your most recent post, it's not clear that you actually do.

Based upon what, exactly? If you actually have something to say, then say it.  



How is it that if a gun which operates on the principle of 'one trigger pull, one round fired' is placed in the hands of a hunter, it is categorized as a hunting rifle, yet when that same weapon is placed in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel, it becomes an 'assault weapon'?
Makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/17/2016, 1:27 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
  .... once you eliminate the auto capability, you're left with a weapon that has exactly the same capabilities as the one that the military or SWAT uses... and that's what makes it an assault weapon.




You stated earlier in the thread that you understand the difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon.
Based upon your most recent post, it's not clear that you actually do.

Based upon what, exactly? If you actually have something to say, then say it.  



How is it that if a gun which operates on the principle of 'one trigger pull, one round fired' is placed in the hands of a hunter, it is categorized as a hunting rifle, yet when that same weapon is placed in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel, it becomes an 'assault weapon'?
Makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

You discussed this with edge already...  The high capacity magazine is what makes the difference.  Real hunters don't slap 30 round magazines on a rifle and repeatedly pull the trigger the moment that they spot game.  That's not what hunting is about... at all.

The reason that it makes no sense to you is simple.  It's become apparent at this point that you've never hunted in your life.  You're  a target shooter.  Nothing wrong with that.  But that's why you don't understand the difference between shooting at a paper target and shooting at a living, breathing animal.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/17/2016, 8:34 pm

Scorpion wrote:
   
happy jack wrote:
   

How is it that if a gun which operates on the principle of 'one trigger pull, one round fired' is placed in the hands of a hunter, it is categorized as a hunting rifle, yet when that same weapon is placed in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel, it becomes an 'assault weapon'?
Makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

You discussed this with edge already...  The high capacity magazine is what makes the difference.  



The capacity of the magazine sure didn’t seem to make a shit’s worth of difference in the Orlando case.
If that clown shot about 100 people and he was using 30 round magazines, then that means he would have reloaded a minimum of 3 times. But, unless he had a hit with every shot, I would bet that he would have had to reload several more times than just 3.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that he did reload only 3 times. If your quibble over magazine capacity hangs on the contention that there would be a better chance of swarming and subduing the shooter while he is swapping magazines, then there were at least 3 opportunities for that to occur. And if he had been using, say, 10 round magazines, that means there would have been a minimum of 9 opportunities to swarm and subdue the shooter.
I read that there were over 300 patrons in that club at the time, and guess what?: the shooter was not swarmed and subdued.
He could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage, based on the lack of reaction from the crowd. A simple math problem will serve to  illustrate:

If Omar shot 100 people using 30 round magazines, and there were 3 chances to swarm and subdue him….

3 – 30 round magazine swaps = 3 chances

…. but nobody stepped forward to swarm and subdue him. So how many times would he be swarmed and subdued if he were using 10 round magazines?

9 – 10 round magazine swaps = 9 chances

3 x 0 equals 0, and 9 x 0 also equals 0, so it appears he wouldn't have been swarmed and subdued, and magazine capacity didn’t appear to play any part in this shooting.

Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/17/2016, 8:55 pm

happy jack wrote:

[b]The capacity of the magazine sure didn’t seem to make a shit’s worth of difference in the Orlando case.
I read that there were over 300 patrons in that club at the time, and guess what?: the shooter was not swarmed and subdued.
He could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage, based on the lack of reaction from the crowd.
Lack of reaction? They were running for their lives,moron.
happy jack wrote:
Magazine capacity didn’t appear to play any part in this shooting.
Wrong again,bozo. Only an idiot would come to that conclusion.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/18/2016, 8:53 am

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

The capacity of the magazine sure didn’t seem to make a shit’s worth of difference in the Orlando case.
I read that there were over 300 patrons in that club at the time, and guess what?: the shooter was not swarmed and subdued.
He could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage, based on the lack of reaction from the crowd.

Lack of reaction? They were running for their lives,moron.





Omar was outnumbered 320 to 1.
Either he was the baddest motherfucker ever to walk the earth, or ....
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/18/2016, 9:10 am

Heretic wrote:
Alright, happy.  I need help defending the absolute assault on "the cause" going on right now.  The NRA came out saying that people on the terrorist watch list should be denied their second amendment.  



This reminds me about the time Ted Kennedy was mistaken for someone who was on the no-fly list.
That’s absolutely ridiculous – this country would have been made infinitely safer if he had been put on the no-drive list.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/18/2016, 1:36 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   
happy jack wrote:
   

How is it that if a gun which operates on the principle of 'one trigger pull, one round fired' is placed in the hands of a hunter, it is categorized as a hunting rifle, yet when that same weapon is placed in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel, it becomes an 'assault weapon'?
Makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

You discussed this with edge already...  The high capacity magazine is what makes the difference.  



The capacity of the magazine sure didn’t seem to make a shit’s worth of difference in the Orlando case.
If that clown shot about 100 people and he was using 30 round magazines, then that means he would have reloaded a minimum of 3 times. But, unless he had a hit with every shot, I would bet that he would have had to reload several more times than just 3.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that he did reload only 3 times. If your quibble over magazine capacity hangs on the contention that there would be a better chance of swarming and subduing the shooter while he is swapping magazines, then there were at least 3 opportunities for that to occur. And if he had been using, say, 10 round magazines, that means there would have been a minimum of 9 opportunities to swarm and subdue the shooter.
I read that there were over 300 patrons in that club at the time, and guess what?: the shooter was not swarmed and subdued.
He could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage, based on the lack of reaction from the crowd. A simple math problem will serve to  illustrate:

If Omar shot 100 people using 30 round magazines, and there were 3 chances to swarm and subdue him….

3 – 30 round magazine swaps = 3 chances

…. but nobody stepped forward to swarm and subdue him. So how many times would he be swarmed and subdued if he were using 10 round magazines?

9 – 10 round magazine swaps = 9 chances

3 x 0 equals 0, and 9 x 0 also equals 0, so it appears he wouldn't have been swarmed and subdued, and magazine capacity didn’t appear to play any part in this shooting.


Yeah. Well this is undoubtedly one of the most ignorant posts that you've ever written.  The gunman first exchanged fire with a cop outside the club. The cop actually retreated because he was "outgunned."   Then, the gunman entered the club and just opened up on the unsuspecting patrons.  More cops arrived a couple of minutes later, and the gunman even exchanged fire with SWAT.  

Next time, do some fucking research. To say that "he could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage" is beyond ignorant given the facts, which are readily available...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/index.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting-timeline-htmlstory.html
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/18/2016, 3:38 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

The capacity of the magazine sure didn’t seem to make a shit’s worth of difference in the Orlando case.
I read that there were over 300 patrons in that club at the time, and guess what?: the shooter was not swarmed and subdued.
He could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage, based on the lack of reaction from the crowd.

Lack of reaction? They were running for their lives,moron.





[b]Omar was outnumbered 320 to 1.
Either he was the baddest motherfucker ever to walk the earth, or ....
Or had you been there you would have whipped out whatever penis extender you were carrying affraid and shot him dead,right?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/18/2016, 4:25 pm

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   
happy jack wrote:
   

How is it that if a gun which operates on the principle of 'one trigger pull, one round fired' is placed in the hands of a hunter, it is categorized as a hunting rifle, yet when that same weapon is placed in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel, it becomes an 'assault weapon'?
Makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

You discussed this with edge already...  The high capacity magazine is what makes the difference.  



The capacity of the magazine sure didn’t seem to make a shit’s worth of difference in the Orlando case.
If that clown shot about 100 people and he was using 30 round magazines, then that means he would have reloaded a minimum of 3 times. But, unless he had a hit with every shot, I would bet that he would have had to reload several more times than just 3.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that he did reload only 3 times. If your quibble over magazine capacity hangs on the contention that there would be a better chance of swarming and subduing the shooter while he is swapping magazines, then there were at least 3 opportunities for that to occur. And if he had been using, say, 10 round magazines, that means there would have been a minimum of 9 opportunities to swarm and subdue the shooter.
I read that there were over 300 patrons in that club at the time, and guess what?: the shooter was not swarmed and subdued.
He could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage, based on the lack of reaction from the crowd. A simple math problem will serve to  illustrate:

If Omar shot 100 people using 30 round magazines, and there were 3 chances to swarm and subdue him….

3 – 30 round magazine swaps = 3 chances

…. but nobody stepped forward to swarm and subdue him. So how many times would he be swarmed and subdued if he were using 10 round magazines?

9 – 10 round magazine swaps = 9 chances

3 x 0 equals 0, and 9 x 0 also equals 0, so it appears he wouldn't have been swarmed and subdued, and magazine capacity didn’t appear to play any part in this shooting.


Yeah. Well this is undoubtedly one of the most ignorant posts that you've ever written.  The gunman first exchanged fire with a cop outside the club. The cop actually retreated because he was "outgunned."   Then, the gunman entered the club and just opened up on the unsuspecting patrons.  More cops arrived a couple of minutes later, and the gunman even exchanged fire with SWAT.  

Next time, do some fucking research. To say that "he could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage" is beyond ignorant given the facts, which are readily available...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline
/index.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting-timeline-htmlstory.html

I'm wondering if our resident gun genius knows that a typical bolt action hunting rifle holds only 4 or 5 rounds and is loaded ONE round at a time.

Sure doesn't look like it. Given that fact, that post is the most stupid thing I've ever read here.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/18/2016, 8:49 pm

Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   
happy jack wrote:
   

How is it that if a gun which operates on the principle of 'one trigger pull, one round fired' is placed in the hands of a hunter, it is categorized as a hunting rifle, yet when that same weapon is placed in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel, it becomes an 'assault weapon'?
Makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

You discussed this with edge already...  The high capacity magazine is what makes the difference.  



The capacity of the magazine sure didn’t seem to make a shit’s worth of difference in the Orlando case.
If that clown shot about 100 people and he was using 30 round magazines, then that means he would have reloaded a minimum of 3 times. But, unless he had a hit with every shot, I would bet that he would have had to reload several more times than just 3.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that he did reload only 3 times. If your quibble over magazine capacity hangs on the contention that there would be a better chance of swarming and subduing the shooter while he is swapping magazines, then there were at least 3 opportunities for that to occur. And if he had been using, say, 10 round magazines, that means there would have been a minimum of 9 opportunities to swarm and subdue the shooter.
I read that there were over 300 patrons in that club at the time, and guess what?: the shooter was not swarmed and subdued.
He could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage, based on the lack of reaction from the crowd. A simple math problem will serve to  illustrate:

If Omar shot 100 people using 30 round magazines, and there were 3 chances to swarm and subdue him….

3 – 30 round magazine swaps = 3 chances

…. but nobody stepped forward to swarm and subdue him. So how many times would he be swarmed and subdued if he were using 10 round magazines?

9 – 10 round magazine swaps = 9 chances

3 x 0 equals 0, and 9 x 0 also equals 0, so it appears he wouldn't have been swarmed and subdued, and magazine capacity didn’t appear to play any part in this shooting.


Yeah. Well this is undoubtedly one of the most ignorant posts that you've ever written.  The gunman first exchanged fire with a cop outside the club. The cop actually retreated because he was "outgunned."   Then, the gunman entered the club and just opened up on the unsuspecting patrons.  More cops arrived a couple of minutes later, and the gunman even exchanged fire with SWAT.  

Next time, do some fucking research. To say that "he could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage" is beyond ignorant given the facts, which are readily available...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/index.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting-timeline-htmlstory.html



As I said earlier, Omar was outnumbered 320 to 1.
Either he was the baddest motherfucker ever to walk the earth, or ....
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/18/2016, 10:32 pm

happy jack wrote:

As I said earlier, Omar was outnumbered 320 to 1.
Either he was the baddest motherfucker ever to walk the earth, or ....

If the cops and SWAT couldn't stop the guy with what you claim is far superior weaponry, then that speaks volumes.  The idea that unarmed civilians with no training could have done anything when  fully armed, trained professionals who were on the scene within a couple of minutes could not, is just laughable.  

Take the time to read the timeline and you'll find out what actually happened. I know how difficult it is for you to click on links and actually read, but I highly suggest that you do just that.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/19/2016, 7:09 am

edge540 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   
happy jack wrote:
   

How is it that if a gun which operates on the principle of 'one trigger pull, one round fired' is placed in the hands of a hunter, it is categorized as a hunting rifle, yet when that same weapon is placed in the hands of law enforcement or military personnel, it becomes an 'assault weapon'?
Makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

You discussed this with edge already...  The high capacity magazine is what makes the difference.  



The capacity of the magazine sure didn’t seem to make a shit’s worth of difference in the Orlando case.
If that clown shot about 100 people and he was using 30 round magazines, then that means he would have reloaded a minimum of 3 times. But, unless he had a hit with every shot, I would bet that he would have had to reload several more times than just 3.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that he did reload only 3 times. If your quibble over magazine capacity hangs on the contention that there would be a better chance of swarming and subduing the shooter while he is swapping magazines, then there were at least 3 opportunities for that to occur. And if he had been using, say, 10 round magazines, that means there would have been a minimum of 9 opportunities to swarm and subdue the shooter.
I read that there were over 300 patrons in that club at the time, and guess what?: the shooter was not swarmed and subdued.
He could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage, based on the lack of reaction from the crowd. A simple math problem will serve to  illustrate:

If Omar shot 100 people using 30 round magazines, and there were 3 chances to swarm and subdue him….

3 – 30 round magazine swaps = 3 chances

…. but nobody stepped forward to swarm and subdue him. So how many times would he be swarmed and subdued if he were using 10 round magazines?

9 – 10 round magazine swaps = 9 chances

3 x 0 equals 0, and 9 x 0 also equals 0, so it appears he wouldn't have been swarmed and subdued, and magazine capacity didn’t appear to play any part in this shooting.


Yeah. Well this is undoubtedly one of the most ignorant posts that you've ever written.  The gunman first exchanged fire with a cop outside the club. The cop actually retreated because he was "outgunned."   Then, the gunman entered the club and just opened up on the unsuspecting patrons.  More cops arrived a couple of minutes later, and the gunman even exchanged fire with SWAT.  

Next time, do some fucking research. To say that "he could have been using a single-shot bolt action rifle and still done the same amount of damage" is beyond ignorant given the facts, which are readily available...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline
/index.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting-timeline-htmlstory.html

I'm wondering if our resident gun genius knows that a typical bolt action hunting rifle holds only 4 or 5 rounds and is loaded ONE round at a time.

Sure doesn't look like it. Given that fact, that post is the most stupid thing I've ever read here.
He continues to embarrass himself despite my pleas to stop. It's stunning how little he actually knows about how different guns function.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/19/2016, 8:27 am

Artie60438 wrote:
  It's stunning how little he actually knows about how different guns function.

That, coming from the idiot who wrote this?

Artie60438 wrote:
   
Can you shoot between 400 to 800 rounds before reloading on a deer rifle like you can on an AR-15?

Funny.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/19/2016, 11:17 am

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
  It's stunning how little he actually knows about how different guns function.

That, coming from the idiot who wrote this?

Artie60438 wrote:
   
Can you shoot between 400 to 800 rounds before reloading on a deer rifle like you can on an AR-15?

[b]Funny.
Do have a link for that alleged statement or did you pull it out your ass?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 12:02 am

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
  It's stunning how little he actually knows about how different guns function.

That, coming from the idiot who wrote this?

Artie60438 wrote:
   
Can you shoot between 400 to 800 rounds before reloading on a deer rifle like you can on an AR-15?

Funny.

Do have a link for that alleged statement or did you pull it out your ass?



As a matter of fact, Artie, I do have a link - a link which has just been freshly pulled out of my ass.
Savor the aroma.



happy jack wrote:
http://nofree.forumotion.com/t18520p25-gun-control

Subject: Re: Gun Control    Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:52 pm



"He continues to embarrass himself despite my pleas to stop."
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 12:22 am

edge540 wrote:
   
I'm wondering if our resident gun genius knows that a typical bolt action hunting rifle holds only 4 or 5 rounds and is loaded ONE round at a time.

Sure doesn't look like it.

http://www.tactical-life.com/gear/masterful-mags-top-10-detachable-box-magazine-platforms/#armalite-ar-31-mag-lead

Top 10 Detachable Box Magazine Platforms

Detachable box magazines aren’t just for ARs anymore -- check out this power-packed bunch!

JUL 17, 2014
BY JOHN FASANO

The people who fear and want to ban detachable box magazines (DBMs) literally don’t understand why we need them. It’s not just about capacity or rapid reloading, it’s about changing the load we’re using when new conditions arise, and the concept has been around for nearly 100 years.
While the country’s politicians rush to ban “assault clips,” “war magazines” and whatever other misguided thing they want to call DBMs for ARs, M1As, AKs and other military-style rifles, the use of DBMs has exploded in bolt-action rifles and hunting-configuration semi-autos like the Benelli R1.
We decided to take a look at some of the box-fed rifles available to U.S. buyers.

………

Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   6/20/2016, 9:30 am

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
  It's stunning how little he actually knows about how different guns function.

That, coming from the idiot who wrote this?

Artie60438 wrote:
   
Can you shoot between 400 to 800 rounds before reloading on a deer rifle like you can on an AR-15?

Funny.

Do have a link for that alleged statement or did you pull it out your ass?



As a matter of fact, Artie, I do have a link - a link which has just been freshly pulled out of my ass.
Savor the aroma.



happy jack wrote:
http://nofree.forumotion.com/t18520p25-gun-control

Subject: Re: Gun Control    Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:52 pm



"He continues to embarrass himself despite my pleas to stop."
Wow! You actually did some research to find that quote. Unfortunately you didn't include my original comment on that subject because you're a dishonest troll. Enjoy Very Happy  
Artie60438 wrote:
AR-15 can easily be modified to shoot between 400 to 800 rounds a minute.
So once again you have embarrassed yourself. Well done,wll done indeed!
This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   

Back to top Go down
 
Gun Control
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 37 of 39Go to page : Previous  1 ... 20 ... 36, 37, 38, 39  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: