Trump Thread 2.0

[Mediumrarechicken]

it's been years now and you're still too stupid to figure out i'm not a liberal, and you're trying to tell me to wrap my head around anything?

boy, you don't have enough 550 cord to make a square knot with, and that's evident because all you can present is an ad hominem and false associations. shut the fuck up.

Hahaa I know you arnt a liberal, I just throw shit your way because you act like a toddler and it makes me laugh.

I have a couple hundred few of 550, but I'm not sure what rope has to deal with talking shit to you.

You keep saying that you have me on ignore...... yet I still get that hook in your mouth dont i...

You live in a city that the mayor and city council are so shitty and obviously dont have your best interests in their minds. Theres a damn website to report human shit on the sidewalk, my city doesnt have that...

YouTube seattle is dying, it's an hour long and shows how stupid Democrat held cities on the west coast are. Watch it.

[mrsleeve]

Seems I missed this.

So the states can "infringe" on guns. I thought that "shall not" happen.

The Constitution is a federal document its meant to lay out the frame work of what the Federal govt is NOT allowed to do.

Recognize this
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

This is why a large portion of the STATES individual Constitution contain similar wording to the 2a.

Cool, then by your own admission you don't need military style weapons. Such as Ar's and the like. As that's not what your average citizen has. Remember in the context of the constitution there is no GI, or rifleman. Just citizens.

Oh my so short sighted and ignoring the primary context of the amendment, the mental gymnastics you have to go thought to see this as a legitimate counter argument. Or did you miss the last word of "Equivalent" in there in your rush to hit post.

While your correct at the time of the founding there was no real envisionment of a "standing army" of the USA. The funny thing is though many other countries had large standing armies, so in the context of the 2a citizens should have access to equal or greater quality and type of weapons fielded by OTHER COUNTRIES infantry men, that might decided to try to invade. Or in the context of the overreaching US Federal govt, the forces they may have hired and equipped in lieu of a standing army.

Not entirely true. They didn't have "rifles", they had muzzle loading muskets with rifled barrels. The British used muzzle loading muskets with smooth bore barrels. The only difference being the rifled barrel, which aided only in accuracy. Not in loading speed. The British actually had the more advanced tech in the form of the Ferguson rifle. Considered to be the first production breach loading rifle. Aiding both accuracy and reload speed. The British lost largely to tactics rather than tech. As most tech was coming out of Europe, not america.

Jesus H christ. You have made my case for me.... A rifle has rifled barrel does not matter if its muzzle loaded, breach block, bolt action, or a fucking AR15.... Your right, loading time was all but the same, but when you can engage at extended range from the guys shooting back, and make more of your sides shots count, at that great distance when other factors are equal then you have the superior weapon.

UMMM humm Fergusos IIRC were never in mass production with something less than a couple hundred total ever made, and the only documented usage was at the battle of Brandywine in NY where Ferguson himself was severely wounded and his "experimental rifle corps" was disbanded and the rifles never saw action again for the rest of the war. Hmmm what else, it was expensive and broke a lot, at the neck of the stock was not strong enough to hold up the to breach block forces in a combat role.


Your right tactics played a major role, because well when you have a ill trained force and SIGNIFICANT distance/accuracy advantage you play to that strength as best you can.. The major reason, why the Colonial forces prevailed and we are having this conversation was the British High Command in London, REFUSAL to reinforce their Garrisons in the US colonies from garrisons stationed in the Caribbean. Why you might ask, they would lose the MONEY, from the SUGAR producing islands, and would not be able to protect them or their trade routes from their European rivals, the French Navy had a solid hand in helping out as well.

Wow, just wow. At least he earned his rights by serving. What did you do to earn yours? Other than being born in america.

Well since I hold dear all free men (or is "persons" the right term now) are bestowed their rights from Natural law, they are not EARNED, GRANTED, or otherwise CONDITIONAL to service in the nations military.

I'll agree guns are just tools. So why are you guys so upset about losing one tool? You still get all the others, they don't want to ban all tools. Your basically throwing a temper tantrum that the government wants to take away your toy. It's sad really.

I explained all this already.

The thing i don't ever see mentioned is that none of you guys have any training, yet assume your going be Rambo. Unless your going threw tactical training, marksmanship, situational awareness, stress training, ect.. on a near daily basis none of you would be considered proficient with a firearm. It's delusional at best, dangerous at worst. My theory is most of you would freeze out of fear, cause most of you never have to deal with high stress situations on a regular basis. Hell, how many of you have even been in a real fist fight? Soldiers freeze up, yet somehow you guys with zero training, zero experience in life or death situations, are somehow gonna react perfectly. Sure.

Never assumed anything of the sort, I am not one to go looking for a fight, nor one to start one but I sure as hell will finish it. and who knows might choke, dont know until confronted with such a situation. Through out history many many ordinary men have done extraordinary things when push came to shove, and no one knows until they are confronted with such circumstances how they will react.

I'm all for gun ownership, but I'm against bullshit excuses or using the constitution as a shield. If you want guns cause they're cool, or cause you feel scared without it, or you like to collect them, or cause you have a tiny dick and a gun makes you feel manlier, cool. Just be a man and say that. Stop hiding behind bullshit.

Wow are we projecting much Jesus.

Look, america does have a gun issue, a mass/school shooting issue. There's no denying it. The question is what are you going to do to fix it? The answer from the right is hopes and prayers, from the left is policy. And I've never known hopes and prayers to change things.

Nahhh we have societal issues, mostly cropping up from the theories turned policy/social norms from the 1960's.

And I have never known laws to stop anyone from committing heinous acts once the mind has been made up. Laws are reactive and punitive to those that abide by them, and give the advantage to those that wont. Law only has effect after its violated................ and by then its too late.

[mrsleeve]

About 10 years ago century arms had a run of ak74's that that had over bored barrels. I'd only get a few shots to hit a target at 200yards and about half on the target at 100. Bullets dont stabilize after they leave the barrel, if they had fins maybe they could. Just like if you throw a football and it's not a spiral, it will flop around. It's impossible. I've never heard of it happening, but if you can send me a link on it, I'll read it.

Well the quick and dirty of it as I remember, its basically this. Once the projectile is free of the constraints of the barrel and is fighting all of the physics on its own, The projectile gets a bit of yaw placed on it as it as the air fights the tip and with no more barrel there to hold it true the tip of the projectile will deflect slightly from the direction of travel. This sliding action creates a magnus effect on the leeward side of the spin (this is worse in a crosswind) and that destabilizes the projectile briefly as the projectiles center of pressure is established.

What is the center of pressure you might ask?? This is all the aero forces that act on the length of the projectile, while in flight, and if your center of pressure is behind the center of gravity of the projectile then you have a very stable trajectory and much less drag. If the converse is true then any yaw and deflection will be exacerbated in flight. This is very noticeable when that point shifts when projectile transitions to sub sonic speeds and why some projectiles will start to tumble no matter what, some will just get very wobbly while others still may restablize to a degree. Everything from bullet weight, projectile composition, tail end profile, ogive, caliber, barrel twist, velocity, air density/conditions, will play a role in this and how long it takes to stabilize a larger high velocity projectile initially and what happens at the extreme end of the range. Its got a lot to do with why at extended ranges some rifles like certain loads and conditions more than others not evident at shorter and medium ranges . You dont see much deviation in the sub 400-500yard range from a lot of this, most of the deviation you see inside that distance is a twist rate/projectile/velocity miss match. I used to be really into the flight physics of extreme range shooting, just never get the time to do put any of it into practice so my AT&T rig just sits in the safe.

But if your rifle barrel is out of tolerance and launching wounded ducks there is not much hope of any spin or areo forces stabilizing that out, in fact due to the increased drag from the get go the wobble is likely magnified by the center of pressure / center of gravity missmatch.

[R3Z3N]

Talking about a round stabilizing, check The Slow Mo Guys tank footage. Check how the round porpoises a few feet after leaving the muzzle:

https://youtu.be/xpJ8EoGmLuE?t=371

[mrsleeve]

^
Thats a perfect example just scaled up, its the very same thing that happens with long pointy projectiles out of people mounted high velocity projectile launchers

[R3Z3N]

your lack of understanding of the concept of "force multiplier" and how it's applied in this context is one of the reasons you shouldn't be allowed to play with anything more than a .22LR.

Luckily the law states differently. I started shooting 30-30 and 12ga at maybe 7 years old. We even had fun and shot .22 in the high school gym with backstops! Understanding of force multipliers, pascals law, conservation of energy, or E30 S54 swap info do not apply to your rights. However, the 4 "rules" of gun handling can save onself a ton of legal hurt. I have thought of where I should try to place my shots should I have an intruder. God forbid my round hurts someone else, but alas, it will most likely be considered the attackers fault for causing the home defense situation. If not, such is the case and I hope to have a good lawyer and not to be judged by 12 on the left.

Think the founding fathers, the militia, understood force multipliers? Maybe maybe not, but they helped create this amazing country where you have the right to stand and say you loathe your rights, and give them up, that you want them more tightly defined so that you can think less will step out of line to be a good sheep and peace will reign because of our benevolent people and government.

On the Trump thread, I hope someone better than Trump comes along, but I have my doubts that will ever be coming from the Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, Socialist or Communist side. Any side that thinks that Social Welfare via the government, that Pro-Choice is actually about choice, that morals, sex and gender are relative have proven that faith in the idea of relativism is destructive to just about everything good.

[Wschnitz]

Its pretty sad when you are delusional enough to think its hard for someone better then a criminal to come around.

[decay]

I have a couple hundred few of 550, but I'm not sure what rope has to deal with talking shit to you.

i guess you missed that analogy.

you said i had trouble wrapping my head around things.

i used that as an opportunity to say that you don't have enough paracord to tie a knot with, much less wrap around anything.

that i'm having to explain this to you is evidence exhibit fucking five thousand and ninety.

but maybe i'm doing a good thing here and this will help you understand the next joke someone puts down at your expense.

[decay]

Any side that thinks that Social Welfare via the government, that Pro-Choice is actually about choice, that morals, sex and gender are relative have proven that faith in the idea of relativism is destructive to just about everything good.

ok, i have to admit that sentence broke my brain.

so you think the government should have less latitude and authority. got that part, and i'm with you, on some of it.

then where the hell do details of people's private lives like sex, gender, and the right to have an abortion come into the equation?

if someone's morals, or gender identity, or sex life, do not affect you- why do you have an objection and why do you think it needs to be legislated?

if the answer to that is in any way related to any religion, you can fuck right off, because i will not be governed by christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, or any other flavor of such idiocy. you can believe in them if you choose, but they do not dictate my life.

[decay]

Think the founding fathers, the militia, understood force multipliers? Maybe maybe not, but they helped create this amazing country where you have the right to stand and say you loathe your rights, and give them up, that you want them more tightly defined so that you can think less will step out of line to be a good sheep and peace will reign because of our benevolent people and government.

i don't loathe my rights, i earned them.

i think other people, including you, should have to do the same.

[mbonder]

Any side that thinks that Social Welfare via the government, that Pro-Choice is actually about choice, that morals, sex and gender are relative have proven that faith in the idea of relativism is destructive to just about everything good.

Just remember, gun ownership is a right that can't be taken away and is good for all, but your ability to define what you believe is moral and immoral, privacy, your sexual preferences, and the way you express yourself are not a right and are destructive to society. Oops, that gosh darn First Amendment, why did the Framers have to write it in before my gun ownership...

Nahhh we have societal issues, mostly cropping up from the theories turned policy/social norms from the 1960's.

Now there's a pivot we can make away from the quarterly gun discussion of whether the Second Amendment allows you to own rockets. How was society ruined by the 1960s? That's at the least nearly 50 years ago, which means anyone that lived through it is at least 60, which would put them solidly in average age for Congress, so the children of the 60s are definitely making policy. Curious to see what societal issues you are thinking of and what policies do you think cause mass shootings and such.

[frankenbeemer]

i don't loathe my rights, i earned them.

i think other people, including you, should have to do the same.

If you earned them, they are not rights, they are privileges.

[z31maniac]

That said your states castle law stipulates a 1st duty to retreat, my states does not.....

Me thinks you're confusing castle doctrine with stand your ground.

California has castle doctrine.............. how exactly does one retreat in their own home? Which is moot since the California Supreme Court wrote more than 100 years ago there is no requirement to retreat in your own home.

And even though it's not on the books, CALCRIM rules do allow a jury do acquit based on stand-your-ground.

"A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."

[saucers]

this looks vaguely familiar..
Where is that 10% tax cut from the midterms?

[phillipj]

Trump above: "lose their beloved private health insurance"

What world does this moron live in?

This is a Con man selling monorails.