<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/24763?page=9#posts-1462662'>Jabor</a>:</cite> If someone is breaking into your home with the intention of killing you, you having a gun won’t really help.</blockquote> yea it will <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/24763?page=9#posts-1462662">Jabor</a>:</cite> If someone is breaking into your home with the intention of killing you, you having a gun won’t really help.</blockquote> yea it will

2009-11-14T23:29:15-08:00

true

1462671

224

24763

2009-11-14T23:29:15-08:00

707737

i regret poisoning some one, burning a house, hit and run, breaking and entering, beating the hell outta a few people, and smoking. i regret poisoning some one, burning a house, hit and run, breaking and entering, beating the hell outta a few people, and smoking.

2009-11-11T22:54:53-08:00

true

1452861

6643

2009-11-11T22:54:53-08:00

707737

robbers have it hard enough where i live breaking into a house is like asking for a death sentence. castle doctrine laws FTW robbers have it hard enough where i live breaking into a house is like asking for a death sentence. castle doctrine laws FTW

2009-11-11T19:03:04-08:00

true

1452493

64383

2009-11-11T19:03:04-08:00

707737

id just like to state im payed more at work to carry a handgun, i own a CCW. STAY STRAPPED FTW id just like to state im payed more at work to carry a handgun, i own a CCW. STAY STRAPPED FTW

2009-11-11T19:01:20-08:00

true

1452488

24763

2009-11-11T19:01:20-08:00

707737

i do believe, but for all there is that has been said about president obama i havent seen any bills in favor of gun control in fact a few progun laws have been made under his belt. i do believe, but for all there is that has been said about president obama i havent seen any bills in favor of gun control in fact a few progun laws have been made under his belt.

2009-11-11T18:10:58-08:00

true

1452353

879

33896

2009-11-11T18:10:58-08:00

707737

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/33896?page=36#posts-1452322'>finkidz5</a>:</cite> You want to hear something funny? My dad works with farmers now (waste to energy using manure; just a side point don’t harp on it) and he said that these farmers emptied the gun stores, for fear of the government seizing their property.</blockquote> i wouldnt doubt it <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/33896?page=36#posts-1452322">finkidz5</a>:</cite> You want to hear something funny? My dad works with farmers now (waste to energy using manure; just a side point don’t harp on it) and he said that these farmers emptied the gun stores, for fear of the government seizing their property.</blockquote> i wouldnt doubt it

2009-11-11T18:04:02-08:00

true

1452336

877

33896

2009-11-11T18:04:02-08:00

707737

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1451491'>1132</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1449098">secretagentgamer</a>:</cite> i think both exept the m-16 always jams</blockquote> About equal. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1449130">darkninja210</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1310308">1132</a>:</cite> That argument lacks any sort of proof. The AK-47 was designed by a tank commander in WWII and put in production in 1947. It was designed to replace the old 98’s the Russians were using, and it was also meant to be easily produced, easily cleaned and very simple. The M-16 and the AK-47 were both meant to be used as a multi-purpose assault rifle for all occasions. The M-4 is far better at urban combat than the AKM-47.</blockquote> m-16 better in urban than ak-47?? how so? last i checked with an ak you can kill on the other side of a brick wall without special ammo. m-16 nope. as far as jamming about equal an ak can fire more rounds before having to be cleaned compared to an m-16 but aks will stove pipe jam for no real apparent reason it just happens not the highest quality gun but its easily fixed. as far as the m14 goes its superior to both really. m14 = battle rifle——- m16/ak47 = assault rifles not exactly a fair comparison all the guns are great and far superior to the others under certain environmental or situational conditions. there is no easy way to say ones better. however if i could only have one gun for a lifetime id pick the AK b/c it can go long periods without maintenance and still function normally in more adverse conditions than an m14 or m16</blockquote> You are a fool. That is simple as that. The M-4 is the carbine version of the M-16, and is far superior in urban combat than either one. And you play to much Halo. Battle rifles are an obsolete technology. An assault rifle is the perfect hybrid of range and rounds a minute.</blockquote> im just wondering where you get m4? seems irrelevant to the topic you have not even demonstrated a reasoning behind your logic other than saying m4 carbine version and presto its better. why is it better in urban compared to the ak-47? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1451491">1132</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1449098">secretagentgamer</a>:</cite> i think both exept the m-16 always jams</blockquote> About equal. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1449130">darkninja210</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1310308">1132</a>:</cite> That argument lacks any sort of proof. The AK-47 was designed by a tank commander in WWII and put in production in 1947. It was designed to replace the old 98’s the Russians were using, and it was also meant to be easily produced, easily cleaned and very simple. The M-16 and the AK-47 were both meant to be used as a multi-purpose assault rifle for all occasions. The M-4 is far better at urban combat than the AKM-47.</blockquote> m-16 better in urban than ak-47?? how so? last i checked with an ak you can kill on the other side of a brick wall without special ammo. m-16 nope. as far as jamming about equal an ak can fire more rounds before having to be cleaned compared to an m-16 but aks will stove pipe jam for no real apparent reason it just happens not the highest quality gun but its easily fixed. as far as the m14 goes its superior to both really. m14 = battle rifle——- m16/ak47 = assault rifles not exactly a fair comparison all the guns are great and far superior to the others under certain environmental or situational conditions. there is no easy way to say ones better. however if i could only have one gun for a lifetime id pick the AK b/c it can go long periods without maintenance and still function normally in more adverse conditions than an m14 or m16</blockquote> You are a fool. That is simple as that. The M-4 is the carbine version of the M-16, and is far superior in urban combat than either one. And you play to much Halo. Battle rifles are an obsolete technology. An assault rifle is the perfect hybrid of range and rounds a minute.</blockquote> im just wondering where you get m4? seems irrelevant to the topic you have not even demonstrated a reasoning behind your logic other than saying m4 carbine version and presto its better. why is it better in urban compared to the ak-47?

2009-11-11T17:43:16-08:00

true

1452291

176

18688

2009-11-11T17:43:16-08:00

707737

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1449564'>Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> m-16 better in urban than ak-47?? how so? last i checked with an ak you can kill on the other side of a brick wall without special ammo. m-16 nope. </blockquote> The AK-47 has a muzzle velocity of 715 m/s. The M16 has a muzzle velocity of 975 m/s. </blockquote> ok? the bullets a bit slower it still remains its not as frangible and has more ENERGY 7.62x39 = 1500 ft/lbs AK-47,SKS 5.56x45 = 1300ft/lbs M-16,M-4,AUG,C7,FAMAS,L85 7.62x51 = 2400ft/lbs M-14,M-60,M240,G3A3,HK91,FNFAL yea so it goes like this bigger bullets that do not break into tiny pieces can go through bricks and kill where as less powerful and smaller rounds cannot. obviously the M-14 fires a superior round in terms of sheer power and range. <blockquote> <blockquote> as far as the m14 goes its superior to both really. m14 = battle rifle——- m16/ak47 = assault rifles not exactly a fair comparison </blockquote> Which is totally why the US Military replaced the M14 with M16’s in 1970, right? </blockquote> true but they are still used today mainly by special forces and or specialty squad roles. the M-14 has been steadily upgraded i believe the latest version being the Mark 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) which was completed in 2003. its not like the military just up and said bah these are useless heres your m-16. as i stated before its a whole different class of small arm. now last i checked battle rifles were more powerful weapons compared to assault rifles, and in that regard the the M-14 is vastly superior. <blockquote> <blockquote> Sadly I am a wuss and know little of guns…. I will say simply “Whatever Darkninja said” </blockquote> Following expert opinion can be a good thing, if you can figure out who the experts are. Sadly, you’ve chosen to listen to an idiot.</blockquote> so this is what you have come down to. truly i thought you were better than this. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1449564">Iggyshark</a>:</cite> <blockquote> m-16 better in urban than ak-47?? how so? last i checked with an ak you can kill on the other side of a brick wall without special ammo. m-16 nope. </blockquote> The AK-47 has a muzzle velocity of 715 m/s. The M16 has a muzzle velocity of 975 m/s. </blockquote> ok? the bullets a bit slower it still remains its not as frangible and has more ENERGY 7.62×39 = 1500 ft/lbs AK-47,SKS 5.56×45 = 1300ft/lbs M-16,M-4,AUG,C7,FAMAS,L85 7.62×51 = 2400ft/lbs M-14,M-60,M240,G3A3,HK91,FNFAL yea so it goes like this bigger bullets that do not break into tiny pieces can go through bricks and kill where as less powerful and smaller rounds cannot. obviously the M-14 fires a superior round in terms of sheer power and range. <blockquote> <blockquote> as far as the m14 goes its superior to both really. m14 = battle rifle——- m16/ak47 = assault rifles not exactly a fair comparison </blockquote> Which is totally why the US Military replaced the M14 with M16’s in 1970, right? </blockquote> true but they are still used today mainly by special forces and or specialty squad roles. the M-14 has been steadily upgraded i believe the latest version being the Mark 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) which was completed in 2003. its not like the military just up and said bah these are useless heres your m-16. as i stated before its a whole different class of small arm. now last i checked battle rifles were more powerful weapons compared to assault rifles, and in that regard the the M-14 is vastly superior. <blockquote> <blockquote> Sadly I am a wuss and know little of guns…. I will say simply “Whatever Darkninja said” </blockquote> Following expert opinion can be a good thing, if you can figure out who the experts are. Sadly, you’ve chosen to listen to an idiot.</blockquote> so this is what you have come down to. truly i thought you were better than this.

2009-11-10T21:33:38-08:00

true

1449594

173

18688

2009-11-10T21:34:06-08:00

707737

im pleased that this man is dead. some people just need/deserve killing. im pleased that this man is dead. some people just need/deserve killing.

2009-11-10T21:15:28-08:00

true

1449568

64304

2009-11-10T21:15:28-08:00

707737

wow pooky youve really thought this out decently. my plan = none (zombies seriously) wow pooky youve really thought this out decently. my plan = none (zombies seriously)

2009-11-10T20:31:33-08:00

true

1449448

64300

2009-11-10T20:31:33-08:00

707737

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1310308'>1132</a>:</cite> That argument lacks any sort of proof. The AK-47 was designed by a tank commander in WWII and put in production in 1947. It was designed to replace the old 98’s the Russians were using, and it was also meant to be easily produced, easily cleaned and very simple. The M-16 and the AK-47 were both meant to be used as a multi-purpose assault rifle for all occasions. The M-4 is far better at urban combat than the AKM-47.</blockquote> m-16 better in urban than ak-47?? how so? last i checked with an ak you can kill on the other side of a brick wall without special ammo. m-16 nope. as far as jamming about equal an ak can fire more rounds before having to be cleaned compared to an m-16 but aks will stove pipe jam for no real apparent reason it just happens not the highest quality gun but its easily fixed. as far as the m14 goes its superior to both really. m14 = battle rifle----- m16/ak47 = assault rifles not exactly a fair comparison all the guns are great and far superior to the others under certain environmental or situational conditions. there is no easy way to say ones better. however if i could only have one gun for a lifetime id pick the AK b/c it can go long periods without maintenance and still function normally in more adverse conditions than an m14 or m16 <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/18688?page=7#posts-1310308">1132</a>:</cite> That argument lacks any sort of proof. The AK-47 was designed by a tank commander in WWII and put in production in 1947. It was designed to replace the old 98’s the Russians were using, and it was also meant to be easily produced, easily cleaned and very simple. The M-16 and the AK-47 were both meant to be used as a multi-purpose assault rifle for all occasions. The M-4 is far better at urban combat than the AKM-47.</blockquote> m-16 better in urban than ak-47?? how so? last i checked with an ak you can kill on the other side of a brick wall without special ammo. m-16 nope. as far as jamming about equal an ak can fire more rounds before having to be cleaned compared to an m-16 but aks will stove pipe jam for no real apparent reason it just happens not the highest quality gun but its easily fixed. as far as the m14 goes its superior to both really. m14 = battle rifle——- m16/ak47 = assault rifles not exactly a fair comparison all the guns are great and far superior to the others under certain environmental or situational conditions. there is no easy way to say ones better. however if i could only have one gun for a lifetime id pick the AK b/c it can go long periods without maintenance and still function normally in more adverse conditions than an m14 or m16

2009-11-10T18:57:46-08:00

true

1449130

169

18688

2009-11-10T18:57:46-08:00

707737

i think im gay for gay topics. i think im gay for gay topics.

2009-11-08T20:14:17-08:00

true

1444145

63996

2009-11-08T20:14:17-08:00

707737

every one has a gun, all the time! crime will be less than what it is now at least in the USA. from what i gather citys that ban guns have more crime than cities without bans every one has a gun, all the time! crime will be less than what it is now at least in the USA. from what i gather citys that ban guns have more crime than cities without bans

2009-11-07T23:37:38-08:00

true

1441185

63925

2009-11-07T23:38:15-08:00

707737

a little touchy there, aye darkruler. Im not seeing how other religions could even be brought down by this. It seems to me that the "fraud" was in the pushy business practices and the questionable financial gain......last i checked most churches don't push their zealots to give money.the church just tells them its the right thing to do, and so they do. also im sure other religious organizations do not ask for the same amounts of money as scientology would. So if you can show that say a cardinal payed his way up the ladder to pope while other members gained questionable amounts of money. you could use the scientology case to show that a fraud had been committed. otherwise this is pretty null to other religions. a little touchy there, aye darkruler. Im not seeing how other religions could even be brought down by this. It seems to me that the “fraud” was in the pushy business practices and the questionable financial gain……last i checked most churches don’t push their zealots to give money.the church just tells them its the right thing to do, and so they do. also im sure other religious organizations do not ask for the same amounts of money as scientology would. So if you can show that say a cardinal payed his way up the ladder to pope while other members gained questionable amounts of money. you could use the scientology case to show that a fraud had been committed. otherwise this is pretty null to other religions.

2009-11-03T18:28:45-08:00

true

1429465

63164

2009-11-03T18:28:45-08:00

707737

its possible we could with genetics eventually phase out humans desire to have sex altogether its possible we could with genetics eventually phase out humans desire to have sex altogether

2009-10-20T17:52:42-07:00

true

1390792

289

33708

2009-10-20T17:52:42-07:00

707737

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59671?page=8#posts-1362662'>Stone128</a>:</cite> In Unity We Trust would probably be a better choice, but after all the time of “In God We Trust” I don’t see why everyone has a sudden urge to change it now. If they were to change it though, they should change it to something like what I said or on the first page someone said in freedom we trust. something completely non-religious, and based on what America is supposed to be about, like freedom and all that. That’s just my humble Canadian opinion though.</blockquote> yes that was my idea and thank you. being an american and atheist im deeply upset about my encounters with the faithful in my area. i live in bible belt tennessee. i think taking off in god we trust and putting up in freedom we trust would upset a few but in time might instill some memory of what america is all about, freedom. the people i see could definitely think less about god and more about tolerance and freedom. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=8#posts-1362662">Stone128</a>:</cite> In Unity We Trust would probably be a better choice, but after all the time of “In God We Trust” I don’t see why everyone has a sudden urge to change it now. If they were to change it though, they should change it to something like what I said or on the first page someone said in freedom we trust. something completely non-religious, and based on what America is supposed to be about, like freedom and all that. That’s just my humble Canadian opinion though.</blockquote> yes that was my idea and thank you. being an american and atheist im deeply upset about my encounters with the faithful in my area. i live in bible belt tennessee. i think taking off in god we trust and putting up in freedom we trust would upset a few but in time might instill some memory of what america is all about, freedom. the people i see could definitely think less about god and more about tolerance and freedom.

2009-10-11T19:33:02-07:00

true

1363590

194

59671

2009-10-11T19:33:02-07:00

707737

i suppose we shouldnt learn about algebra either. proof: D students i suppose we shouldnt learn about algebra either. proof: D students

2009-10-11T19:25:31-07:00

true

1363556

60401

2009-10-11T19:25:31-07:00

707737

im just curious because i see so many "self proclaimed" christians acting so unchristian like, at least according to the bible. what is it that causes people to selectively choose what parts they believe and what parts they do not? im just curious because i see so many “self proclaimed” christians acting so unchristian like, at least according to the bible. what is it that causes people to selectively choose what parts they believe and what parts they do not?

2009-10-10T18:22:40-07:00

true

1359403

60200

2009-10-10T18:23:11-07:00

707737

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59775?page=1#posts-1352600'>SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> We should stop it </blockquote> Why should we? <blockquote> It would be difficult to stop. </blockquote> Yea. Maybe you could limit the overall supply.</blockquote> im just curious why do you want to limit overall supply? it seems its something you want to do often. id argue that you would actually create a black market and cause the price of the drug to sky rocket. plus limiting or "banning" doesnt work, has never worked, and will never work, ever. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59775?page=1#posts-1352600">SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> We should stop it </blockquote> Why should we? <blockquote> It would be difficult to stop. </blockquote> Yea. Maybe you could limit the overall supply.</blockquote> im just curious why do you want to limit overall supply? it seems its something you want to do often. id argue that you would actually create a black market and cause the price of the drug to sky rocket. plus limiting or “banning” doesnt work, has never worked, and will never work, ever.

2009-10-07T20:34:43-07:00

true

1353008

59775

2009-10-07T20:34:43-07:00

707737

what is the current marksmanship rifle for russia? svd? what is the current marksmanship rifle for russia? svd?

2009-10-07T20:29:27-07:00

true

1353002

126

58840

2009-10-07T20:29:27-07:00

707737

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59671?page=5#posts-1352648'>Jabor</a>:</cite> Are you seriously suggesting that we should kowtow to religious loonies because they might start a loonie rebellion or something?</blockquote> rofl <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=5#posts-1352648">Jabor</a>:</cite> Are you seriously suggesting that we should kowtow to religious loonies because they might start a loonie rebellion or something?</blockquote> rofl

2009-10-07T18:04:59-07:00

true

1352663

105

59671

2009-10-07T18:04:59-07:00

707737

i think this cry to stop fighting is a sign of weakness for the theistic side of the argument. i think this cry to stop fighting is a sign of weakness for the theistic side of the argument.

2009-10-07T17:23:30-07:00

true

1352495

59770

2009-10-07T17:23:30-07:00

707737

i still say it should be changed to "in freedom we trust". a reason for removing in god we trust from currency: its offensive to some, endorsement of a subset of religions, makes all americans look like religious nut cases i still say it should be changed to “in freedom we trust”. a reason for removing in god we trust from currency: its offensive to some, endorsement of a subset of religions, makes all americans look like religious nut cases

2009-10-07T17:20:57-07:00

true

1352483

59671

2009-10-07T17:20:57-07:00

707737

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59671?page=1#posts-1350619'>sgman</a>:</cite> Well, I guess the Greek goddess needs to be taken off of the California state seal too… This is so ridiculous. Whey would anyone care? Is this really something that matters to people?</blockquote> theres a greek goddess on the cali seal!?!??!?! BLASPHEMY and off with their heads. quite frankly yes it should be removed. the government should not endorse a religion of any kind. lets take for instance you love mcdonalds and the state seal incorporates an burger king logo is that right? its free advertising for religion which sounds like a government endorsement to me. Will9831: god is a relative term as well. my point is that using the word god can be alot more confusing than just using freedom. Moses78: what if we had a tradition that included sacrificing the first born of winter. is that something that should really matter to people? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=1#posts-1350619">sgman</a>:</cite> Well, I guess the Greek goddess needs to be taken off of the California state seal too… This is so ridiculous. Whey would anyone care? Is this really something that matters to people?</blockquote> theres a greek goddess on the cali seal!?!??!?! BLASPHEMY and off with their heads. quite frankly yes it should be removed. the government should not endorse a religion of any kind. lets take for instance you love mcdonalds and the state seal incorporates an burger king logo is that right? its free advertising for religion which sounds like a government endorsement to me. Will9831: god is a relative term as well. my point is that using the word god can be alot more confusing than just using freedom. Moses78: what if we had a tradition that included sacrificing the first born of winter. is that something that should really matter to people?

2009-10-06T19:00:03-07:00

true

1350630

59671

2009-10-06T19:02:25-07:00

707737

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/59671?page=1#posts-1350603'>will9831</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=1#posts-1350599">darkninja210</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=1#posts-1350586">moses78</a>:</cite> it’s not specifying a single deity, basically it’s to be taken as an re-enforcement of the freedom of religion parts of the constitution, something that the founding fathers strongly believed in.</blockquote> interesting thought but wouldnt “in FREEDOM we trust” be a 10 fold improvement</blockquote> You can’t really “trust” freedom, because it’s not a person.</blockquote> so i guess you cant trust your senses either as they are not people ?? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=1#posts-1350603">will9831</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=1#posts-1350599">darkninja210</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/59671?page=1#posts-1350586">moses78</a>:</cite> it’s not specifying a single deity, basically it’s to be taken as an re-enforcement of the freedom of religion parts of the constitution, something that the founding fathers strongly believed in.</blockquote> interesting thought but wouldnt “in FREEDOM we trust” be a 10 fold improvement</blockquote> You can’t really “trust” freedom, because it’s not a person.</blockquote> so i guess you cant trust your senses either as they are not people ??

2009-10-06T18:52:05-07:00

true

1350607

59671

2009-10-06T18:52:22-07:00

707737