(03-19-2018 10:35 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:30 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

Bwahahahaha

Same thing in the civil war.

Democrats will lose again

(03-19-2018 10:35 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:30 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

Bwahahahaha

Same thing in the civil war.

They were men. You're soy boys.

Anyone else find it weird a Democrat, that's probably for revoking the 2nd amendment, and from a state with some of the harshest gun control laws is recommending this?

(03-19-2018 09:59 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 09:54 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 05:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 05:37 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

That actually surprises me about Va and NC not being a shade or two darker. Guess those concentrations of people in the sovereign State of northern Virginia and places like Tri-cities, Charlotte etc., dilutes the numbers.

That map also doubles for relative concentrations of deplorables.

Sparsely populated areas.

Where are you going to get your ammunition? Remington makes all of theirs in Arkansas, Winchester in Arkansas, and the military in Missouri.

Where are you going to get your guns? Most of the major gun manufacturers have moved the bulk of their operations to red states.

(03-19-2018 12:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:May 30, 2010—Sharron Angle, a candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator in Nevada, tells the Reno Gazette-Journal that a recent increase in gun sales nationwide "tells me that the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways." These comments echo ones made by Angle in January, when she told conservative radio show talk host Lars Larson, "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take [U.S. Senator from Nevada] Harry Reid out."

And yes, they're both in the wrong.

...and should be run out of Congress for what they did.

(03-19-2018 02:51 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Yup.

Growing up I wasn't allowed to even try to shoot a deer rifle until I could hit a drink can at 100 yards with a .22 rifle. I wasn't allowed to hunt with said deer rifle until I could hit a paper plate stuck on a round bale at 200 yards.

Hitting a deer at 200 yards is a lot different than shooting a human at 200 yards, Now add in bullets being fired back at you and all the other chaos of battle.

Valid point. Now how do you think those people with ZERO gun experience are going to behave when bullets are flying their direction.

Things being equal in this situation:
Shooting at a human
200 yards distance
Bullets being fired back
Chaos of Battle

Now who do you think will be able to handle that situation better?
A) A person with no gun experience
B) A person with gun experience

Yes, obviously you are correct... combat engagement is not like hunting. However in a situation of those two people the person with hunting experience will fair better than someone without any experience at all.

(03-20-2018 05:32 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 02:51 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Yup.

Growing up I wasn't allowed to even try to shoot a deer rifle until I could hit a drink can at 100 yards with a .22 rifle. I wasn't allowed to hunt with said deer rifle until I could hit a paper plate stuck on a round bale at 200 yards.

Hitting a deer at 200 yards is a lot different than shooting a human at 200 yards, Now add in bullets being fired back at you and all the other chaos of battle.

Valid point. Now how do you think those people with ZERO gun experience are going to behave when bullets are flying their direction.

Things being equal in this situation:
Shooting at a human
200 yards distance
Bullets being fired back
Chaos of Battle

Now who do you think will be able to handle that situation better?
A) A person with no gun experience
B) A person with gun experience

Yes, obviously you are correct... combat engagement is not like hunting. However in a situation of those two people the person with hunting experience will fair better than someone without any experience at all.

https://youtu.be/tbpojm3iWUg

(03-19-2018 11:02 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:35 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:30 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

Bwahahahaha

Same thing in the civil war.

They were men. You're soy boys.

I don't drink that crap. I am veteran who trained in use and maintenance of firearms. Keep thinking everyone on the left is the same.

(03-21-2018 04:18 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 11:02 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:35 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:30 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

Bwahahahaha

Same thing in the civil war.

They were men. You're soy boys.

I don't drink that crap. I am veteran who trained in use and maintenance of firearms. Keep thinking everyone on the left is the same.

You may not drink it, but are you careful with what you eat?

Everyone on the left is the same. If you indeed aren't soy, you fall within their margin of error. In other words, you're statistically irrelevant, as for every 1 of you they have, we have 1,000.