Gun Issues page 88

2293 posts

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by -jhco50-:

Ok vika jhco, you have had diarrhea of the mouth long enough. You seem to have a problem coping with normal people and that is a sad thing. Stop lying, stop stretching your ignorant ideas of firearms GUN CONTROL, and please close your mouth. You don’t have enough knowledge to even discuss this topic (GUN CONTROL) with any degree of accuracy, yet you keep spewing posts with inaccurate misinformation directed at me most of us rational posters I’m sure. If you cannot discuss this in a rational matter, go to another thread. Your attitude is grating.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Actually vika jhco, I am just tired of listening to you pretend to be a genius in all things. You are just one more person in a sea of people and no better than the rest. You constantly act rude and hateful to so many people and it is just getting old. It is good to be proud of your accomplishments and abilities, but don’t get to the point you cannot see your limitations. This is a thread on firearms and gun control, you have made all of your emotional arguments and they are duly noted. Now if you cannot add any facts, stop. Right now you are acting like a spoiled brat with your tantrums.

I wonder if he even knows what a MIRROR is?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Actually vika, I am just tired of listening to you pretend to be a genius in all things.

You made a math mistake, boo-hoo. You openly admitted that Vika knows what she’s talking about when it comes to her job, and this does fit into her career path.

You are just one more person in a sea of people and no better than the rest. You constantly act rude and hateful to so many people and it just getting old.

I’ve only seen her be regularly bitter to you and a few stray people who more often than not are trolls.

It is good to be proud of your accomplishments and abilities, but don’t get to the point you cannot see your limitations.

So is this still because she said your math was wrong, or something else?

This is a thread on firearms and gun control, you have made all of your emotional arguments and they are duly noted, not if you cannot add any facts, stop.

Okay, I understand that you probably wont take this to heart, but this entire post of yours is fairly accurately describing your behavior to everyone else here.

Right now you are acting like a spoiled brat with your tantrums.

What tantrums?

I really don’t give a crap about your side foray into why your formula for black powder is better than the actual formula accepted by professionals.

Then it should be easy for you to show her multiple records of that formula being used, so why haven’t you?

You math on ratios is of no use to this conversation and is uninteresting to me.

It’s weird statements like this that make me wonder what it would be like to talk to you in person. (Unless my wild idea of your account getting hacked and being used to troll is actually true, but I’ve mentioned that a little too much.)

 
Flag Post

The ratios I use Tenco, are designed to be used as a stand-alone explosive, not an accelerant, so an accelerant would have slightly differing ratios. Jhco’s mix, if you strip it back to the format an actual ratio is written as, becomes 2:3:15.

It is quite believable that would work as an accelerant. You’re adding considerably more charcoal than sulphur, and literally drowning the entire thing in nitrates. You’ll get a tremendous bang, and all excess oxygen will be consumed in that, adding further thrust behind your shell.

Highly wasteful in nitrates from my perspective, but again, different goals. A bullet only needs tiny amounts, as opposed to digging a hole with a shovel and pouring it in.

He won’t show records, presumably because of that allergy he has to them. He cannot use the excuse that doing so would tell everyone how to make their own gunpowder, because I’ve already done that. He has no excuses left bar his usual refusal to.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I’m sorry but that post was humorous. Don’t take me wrong, but I did have to laugh. Let’s take my formula and change parts to percent. Now 75% +15% +10% equals 100% Your formula for black powder (which won’t work well btw) is 6% (parts) +7% (parts) + 21% (parts), which comes out to 34%, leaving you 66% not accounted for. Even your coffee example must equal 100%? So even though you are using oz instead of percent, those oz of 41.5 must equal 100% That may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but hey, it works.

Just to butt in as grade school maths appears to be confusing for some…

JHCO your formula 75/100 + 15/100 + 10/100 (per cent… literally ‘out of 100’)

Vika’s formula is a simple ratio, not 6%, 7%, 21%… but 6/34 + 7/34 + 21/34 (which in rough figures 18%, 21%, 63%… nb I just multiplied by three rather than get a calculator out)

Yes, even the coffee example accounts to 100%… 80/83 + 2/83 + 1/83 = 83/83 = 1 (or 100/100… e.g. 100%)

Edit: Oh missed the post where this was already pointed out… mea culpa.

Edit 2: Historically 6:1:1 seems pretty common (link)

 
Flag Post

Great! She did not say ratio’s when she stated her formula she gave parts. What difference does it make anyway? If this is all she can talk about in a gun control thread, she is in the wrong thread. Like I said, it isn’t pertinent and I am not really interested in her ratios or her rhetoric.

.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Tenco, vika is having a tantrum trying to save face from the lies she told and the spanking I gave her. In reality she sounds like a two year old who didn’t get her way.

That doesn’t answer my question, because Vika’s posts so far really can’t be called anything like “tantrums.”

Originally posted by jhco50:

Great! She did not say ratio’s when she stated her formula she gave parts.

Same difference.

What difference does it make anyway? If this is all she can talk about in a gun control thread, she is in the wrong thread.

.

Great, so by your own admission she is in the right thread.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Wow Karma, that post above was very clever, I bet you are so proud of yourself…what a douche.

The point is still the same, many of your posts so far have been just caustic fluff with no real substance or to back it up.

Originally posted by jhco50:

So am I to gather none of you anti-gun liberals have anything to add to this thread?

Well do you, because I’d be glad to hear it.

You have used up all of your emotional pleas and now just want to act out?

You really can’t let this go, can you?

If this is so, I really don’t want to listen to your whining.

Whining about what?

The truth is, you have lost your battle on gun control.

Why, because the government got its act together and now unanimously agrees with you, or because it will because you’ve finally stockpiled enough resources for a hostile take-over?

Seriously though, why?

Emotions didn’t play out as you would have liked.

You talk about emotions more than Draconian, yet I still haven’t a clue what you’re seeing.

You came on here with bigoted ideas and they failed.

What bigoted ideas, that Americans can’t all be trusted enough with guns so no gun shop will have drive-though?

Now you want to whine about it. Guess what, I really don’t care.

Anymore or at all, because it takes a hell of a lot of care to keep responding to people on this thread for two days.

Also, does this mean that you’ve decided to stop posting here, or will you continue to, or after a few days or more have passed?

Some of the posters who prefer socialism and one size fits all, you know who you are vika and karma, have failed.

Okay, this is an honest question and I really want an honest, hopefully detailed answer, what do you think socialistic policies are and what do you think Vika/Karma/whoever want from it?

Now, like all good little liberals, you want to attack the person instead of have a meaningful dialogue.

And what have you been doing the past several pages? At best it’s stoking the attacks, at worst it’s making them.

Knowledge is a terrible thing to waste, but you do it anyway.

So is that your explanation why you like to horde your information? I’m really trying to get anything I can right now.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I’m sorry but that post was humorous. Don’t take me wrong, but I did have to laugh. Let’s take my formula and change parts to percent. Now 75% +15% +10% equals 100% Your formula for black powder (which won’t work well btw) is 6% (parts) +7% (parts) + 21% (parts), which comes out to 34%, leaving you 66% not accounted for. Even your coffee example must equal 100%? So even though you are using oz instead of percent, those oz of 41.5 must equal 100% That may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but hey, it works.

I understood what you both were saying; she was discussing finite amounts (like coffee and ratios), you were looking at it strictly by percentages.

Like if she were to add 6 parts to 7 parts to 21 parts, they would still add up to 100% of something, so the 6 parts would be 18% of the total, etc. If that makes any sense. You guys are just having some basic communication issues.

The same way she was suggesting layers of defense, but using very technical terms for it. So would there really be anything wrong with someone having a (legal) firearm, but also having a German Shepherd guard dog and an ADT home security system? I don’t think so. It’s called layered defense; we learn about it in the military, actually.

 
Flag Post

So am I to gather none of you anti-gun liberals have anything to add to this thread? You have used up all of your emotional pleas and now just want to act out? If this is so, I really don’t want to listen to your whining. The truth is, you have lost your battle on gun control. Emotions didn’t play out as you would have liked. You came on here with bigoted ideas and they failed. Now you want to whine about it. Guess what, I really don’t care. Some of the posters who prefer socialism and one size fits all, you know who you are vika and karma, have failed. Now, like all good little liberals, you want to attack the person instead of having a meaningful dialogue. Knowledge is a terrible thing to waste, but you do it anyway.

I’m just going to go ahead and point you at the valid, legal points I raised regarding District of Colombia v. Heller, and the points raised by SCOTUS.

  • The ruling that an outright ban was not Constitutional.
  • The ruling that no other forms of regulation (aside from an outright ban) were being deemed unconstitutional.
  • The ruling that some forms of regulation were in fact needed.

All decided by SCOTUS, the body responsible for final legal interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.
They wrote those things.
Your idea that all regulation is unconstitutional is, as pointed out by the high court, false.

Care to comment?
Or would you rather continue ranting about illusory revolutionary pipe dreams, and acting as if you’ve “won” this discussion?
The courts say that a lot of your ideas are wrong.

What say you?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

We have over 20,000 gun laws on the books as we speak. It is a web of laws, many of which aren’t even enforceable. I honestly feel attacking firearms is a feelgood debate, especially when they are only a portion of murder and crime in general.

which is why crime is so much higher in countries w harsher gun laws. pls give an alternative to gun control as a way to reduce crime. (there is a correct answer to this, but your p. much completely unlikely to get that answer)

also, if you could refrain from threatening the countries of others and harassing rape survivors, that’d be lovely.

You are just one more person in a sea of people and no better than the rest. You constantly act rude and hateful to so many people and it is just getting old.

like 10,000 spoons, when all you need is a knife

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Well, if guns are cheap, then everybody with an adequate job can buy it. People who work at Autozone, a grocery store, etc. don’t deserve such high tech weaponry. yes, my shotgun and rifle price was a bit over-exaggerated, but my modern day pistol price wasn’t. Old 1960’s, 1940’s shotguns and rifles should be for middle-lower class. Higher class should use Modern pistols. Wealthy should be armed with modified AR’s, so its weaker.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
lower caliber, or slower rate of fire?

thank you for telling me how to post chunks of a post! it really helps

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

We have over 20,000 gun laws on the books as we speak. It is a web of laws, many of which aren’t even enforceable. I honestly feel attacking firearms is a feelgood debate, especially when they are only a portion of murder and crime in general.

Addendum to points already raised – You have 20,000 gun laws on the statute books?

Apparently “The precise origin of the 20,000 figure is difficult to determine. The earliest reference that we located appears in congressional testimony given in 1965 by Rep. John Dingell, D-MI, but no source for the estimate is given. Shortly thereafter, George Newton and Franklin Zimring cited Dingell’s use of the figure in their seminal 1969 report, “Firearms and Violence in American Life,” but they also noted that “the basis of the estimate is not provided.””

And a little later in the same document… “Clearly the 20,000 figure is more a product of advocacy than science. And however it was initially derived, the trend toward preemption of local laws has substantially reduced the total. The most informative answer to the question of “how many gun-control laws?” is then “about 300 major state and federal laws, and an unknown but shrinking number of local laws.” Rather than trying to base arguments for more or fewer laws on counting up the current total, we would do better to study the impact of the laws we do have.”

Have just spent a good 30mins trawling through the NRA’s website (I figured they, if anyone, would be spreading the word far and wide if true)… can’t find a mention of, nor justification of, nor any list of laws even close to 20,000 in number. Sure there are a few federal laws (with multiple provisions) and half a dozen or so, generally, on a state by state basis which are, effectively, duplicates of one another… based on that, it looks like 1,000 might be a very generous estimate.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by niceman555:

i think we should focus on the price of the gun. a military pistol should range to 700-1,100$, an old rifle (Carbine) or other should range 1,500-1,900$, and Double Barrel shotguns should price the same as rifles. I would love to buy a gun, but only for collection.

Originally posted by niceman555:

Well, if guns are cheap, then everybody with an adequate job can buy it. People who work at Autozone, a grocery store, etc. don’t deserve such high tech weaponry. yes, my shotgun and rifle price was a bit over-exaggerated, but my modern day pistol price wasn’t. Old 1960’s, 1940’s shotguns and rifles should be for middle-lower class. Higher class should use Modern pistols. Wealthy should be armed with modified AR’s, so its weaker.

Okay,
it is time for YOU to do a little explaining about why you are tying control//regulation of guns to economics….in particular the varying social strata of economics.

Are ya trying to tell me that “ability” to be responsible about guns is dictated by the amount of money one earns? Are ya trying to tie the amount of money one earns w/ intelligence….in particular, that intelligence somehow is equivalent to being a responsible gun owner?

What are ya basing this “philosophy”?
Where are ya obtaining it?
How long have ya been gathering it (what is your age)?
Your understanding of social structure, particularly in the area of economics, smacks of the naivete of a very young person.
It, to me, most often comes from a child who lives quite comfortably in a standard of living which is provided by parents….parents who teach the kind of shit that states the amount of income is THE measuring rod by which ability & worthiness is determined in society.

Be very honest w/ me,,,
don’t Google, etc.,,,
just off the top of yer head…
do ya know what a Saturday night special is?
Do ya think yer economic plan for “gun control” will seriously impact it?
.

Originally posted by niceman555:
lower caliber, or slower rate of fire?

thank you for telling me how to post chunks of a post! it really helps

Okay,
YOU are now a Jedi Master… ala the jhco School of Bullshit Avoidance of Answering Direct Questions.
I give a fuck what modifications it has.
What I want to know is if it is still a superior weapon to those of the “underlings”?
I want to know why economic factors should be established which will determine who has what gun….esp. guns of differing capabilities?
 
Flag Post

Ok, I am 15, i don’t google, and i will tell you. i am basing it off knowledge that i know. Again, since you are by far more intelligent than me, you made me see my flaws. Expense is based off of how much money it takes to make it, how much time, and features, right? I would logically think weapons made in the past would be easier to make because technology is more advanced. The M1 Grand was literally a slab of wood with a spring, a scope and a freaking mag. the M9, G-18, G27C (i get confused with that one.) are modern military pistols. If you compare it to the M1, all those pistols have more advanced mechanics. Therefore, making it harder to build. AR’s as in the M16A1, M4A1, Scar-H, etc. are even more advanced. with all of them having a burst or full auto fire speed. it makes it even more harder now. So, that was my background, let me really start.


Are ya trying to tell me that “ability” to be responsible about guns is dictated by the amount of money one earns? Are ya trying to tie the amount of money one earns w/ intelligence….in particular, that intelligence somehow is equivalent to being a responsible gun owner?

If an Assault Rifle was the same money as a oldey rifle, then that would be great. But it’s like getting something you want, but you don’t have the money for it. You if you want to get the finest gun out there, you are going to need to get it. Not everything can be cheap, and the expensive weaponry is usually the best in quality. that “ability” to be responsible about guns should be about the money. Isn’t that how it always has been?


Do ya think yer economic plan for “gun control” will seriously impact it?

I think all the lower class people will be angry that they have money to purchase a crappy rifle, but they shouldn’t be. Guns are meant for hunting, both humans and animals. The cheapest is the best for beginners. Rich people probably wouldn’t even remember.

No, i don’t know what a Saturday night special is. it matters what you are talking about, though.

If you read my other post, i stated that my original prices were whack.

 
Flag Post

I’d still like to know what jhco thinks about the gap between his interpretation of the Second Amendment, and the interpretation provided by SCOTUS in their District of Colombia v. Heller ruling.

Still waiting.