brandon
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,091
- Reaction score
- 5,387
Offline
T&P
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The term "military style rifle", what does that mean to you?
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Published 2018)
Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.www.nytimes.com
And yet the parents have to take DNA test to identify their children, I doubt this kind of damage could’ve been done with the 22
This is NRA BS. "If you ban such and such they'll just use X, Y, or Z. "1. Dead is dead.
2. The picture I posted, it's not a 22. It's a 9mm; and 9mm ammo comes in many flavors. including some that will make someone's head explode.
And what I posted is not even a rifle, BTW. It is a Glock 17 pistol inside a casing you can get for about $120, with no need for RFA or stamp.
I don’t know where you got that but I call bull. An 5.56 or a .223 makes a hole that is .22 in diameter, so smaller than a pin. It also has a typical weight of .55 grains. It does not have the mass to do that. It will actually make a hole and is designed to tumble once inside.It means just what it says. Civilian versions of military weapons where the only difference is they're semi-auto instead of being capable of switching to full auto. However, that capability is really irrelevant. What's relevant is the damage they do while on semi or full.
The following is going to be very graphic. Don't read if you think it might bother you.
......................................................................................................................................................
I personally took the upper skull off the head of an enemy soldier with one round from an M16. In case you aren't aware there's a lot of suggestive evidence that many of the children in Texas were shot in the head. What do you think the 5.56 round did to those kids?
I got that on the edge of a dried up rice paddy at about 6:00 AM beside a small village near LZ Baldy in May of 1968.I don’t know where you got that but I call bull. An 5.56 or a .223 makes a hole that is .22 in diameter, so smaller than a pin. It also has a typical weight of .55 grains. It does not have the mass to do that. It will actually make a hole and is designed to tumble once inside.
We’re you using an A1 or the common A2? And the reason I ask is most troops in 1968 were still using the M14 all the way up until around 1969.I got that on the edge of a dried up rice paddy at about 6:00 AM beside a small village near LZ Baldy in May of 1968.
Pure NRA crap.Define AR-15 please.
The AR actually stands for a model that Armalite Rifle which is the company that designed the rifle in the 1950’s.
Do you want to ban rifles that have magazines? What about a Ruger 10-22? That is a small rifle that many children and adults learn to shoot and use for target and rabbit hunting. It shoots a 22 caliber bullet and makes the exact size diameter hole as an AR-15 makes. You can also get a magazine that holds 100 rounds cheap. Now the difference is the 10-22 shoots a 22lr round that’s typically moving at 1100fps while the AR moves at about 3300fps. So a lot more energy.
So shall we ban this as well? How about hunting rifles that have magazines?
Now the reason I asked you to define an AR-15 is because many of the characteristics of an AR-15 are found in almost every semi auto rifle on the market. So if you want to ban it you need to define it in such a way it is easy to legislate. California tried to ban it, they changed the grip and it is now California compliant.
I got what they issued all of us. It's in the picture on my posts.We’re you using an A1 or the common A2? And the reason I ask is most troops in 1968 were still using the M14 all the way up until around 1969.
And the reason I ask is most troops in 1968 were still using the M14 all the way up until around 1969.
Please which part is crap? I would really like to know? Point out which parts are crap to me and I will probmvide you with links and source material that prove every point I made.Pure NRA crap.
Please which part is crap? I would really like to know? Point out which parts are crap to me and I will probmvide you with links and source material that prove every point I made.
So you don’t know. That’s odd to me but hey what do I know right? I have only ran gun stores and shooting ranges. I have built AR’s from the ground up. I am an armored for S&W, Glock, and Springfield. Well I was my cert/ expired because I left the field.I got what they issued all of us. It's in the picture on my posts.
You did yourself in with this: " And the reason I ask is most troops in 1968 were still using the M14 all the way up until around 1969." Go back to an NRA forum.
So you don’t know. That’s odd to me but hey what do I know right? I have only ran gun stores and shooting ranges. I have built AR’s from the ground up. I am an armored for S&W, Glock, and Springfield. Well I was my cert/ expired because I left the field.
An you sir are just spouting misinformation. You don’t know me, you don’t know what organizations I am a part of. If you like you can read any of my previous posts. I have also included a link for you to prove the M14 was still being used.Anyone who thinks we were using M14s in Vietnam until '69 doesn't know what he's talking about. But I understand. You don't want any more gun control. You're an NRA shill.
Oh and thanks for proving my point.Anyone who thinks we were using M14s in Vietnam until '69 doesn't know what he's talking about. But I understand. You don't want any more gun control. You're an NRA shill.
Since I read up on the history of California I've had a different view of the history of the interpretation of the second amendment.However - It’s true - I really don’t think we should dumb down our discussion of the Constitution because the R base consists of people who don’t know anything about the Constitution. It needs to be explained, over and over, and politicians who know better need to be held accountable for their pandering to the base.