Tikker wrote:Tuggan wrote:do you know how long it takes to change magazines?
a lot longer than it takes to rattle off a 50 round clip into a crowd
Translation: "No, I have no idea."
You proved it with your response.
Moderator: Dictators in Training
Tikker wrote:Tuggan wrote:do you know how long it takes to change magazines?
a lot longer than it takes to rattle off a 50 round clip into a crowd
Harrison wrote:Tikker wrote:Tuggan wrote:do you know how long it takes to change magazines?
a lot longer than it takes to rattle off a 50 round clip into a crowd
Translation: "No, I have no idea."
You proved it with your response.
Tikker wrote:Tuggan wrote:do you know how long it takes to change magazines?
a lot longer than it takes to rattle off a 50 round clip into a crowd
Tikker wrote:
bullshit
let's see you change even 5x 10 round magazines in the time i can squeeze off 50 rounds in a semi-automatic
Tikker wrote:I think you completely misunderstood what I said Evermore
I'm saying that I can fire 50 rounds from a single clip faster than you can swap in and out 5 magazines (firing as you go)
should just be common sense
Tikker wrote:I think you completely misunderstood what I said Evermore
I'm saying that I can fire 50 rounds from a single clip faster than you can swap in and out 5 magazines (firing as you go)
should just be common sense
Tuggan wrote:Tikker wrote:I think you completely misunderstood what I said Evermore
I'm saying that I can fire 50 rounds from a single clip faster than you can swap in and out 5 magazines (firing as you go)
should just be common sense
of course it would be faster, but it takes all of about 1.5 seconds to eject and reload a fresh magazine. basically what i'm sayin here is that a smaller magazine size wouldn't make much of a difference.
ClakarEQ wrote:
You want to have guns as your hobby, hey no problem, so what if you want to fire off 100 rounds at the range this weekend, it won't be my problem if it costs you $10,000.00 to do it.
Would that not be a solution? Raise the cost of each round to an unreasonably high cost.
Tikker wrote:ClakarEQ wrote:
You want to have guns as your hobby, hey no problem, so what if you want to fire off 100 rounds at the range this weekend, it won't be my problem if it costs you $10,000.00 to do it.
Would that not be a solution? Raise the cost of each round to an unreasonably high cost.
nah, then bullets just go black market
the problem is the mindset in america, not the weapon of choice
Evermore wrote:Tikker wrote:I think you completely misunderstood what I said Evermore
I'm saying that I can fire 50 rounds from a single clip faster than you can swap in and out 5 magazines (firing as you go)
should just be common sense
that makes more sense
and here is the ak-47 info
http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47info.php
ClakarEQ wrote:Harrison, you are the exact person that shouldn't have a gun. You want to get a gun because you were victimized. You already wrote in a thread that you could have potentially killed a kid because you thought your life was threatened, I'd STFU if I were you, you are the NRA Anti-poster child.
Evermore and party, tell me how you would stop someone like a Harri who has been victimized and now only wants to own a gun for "self defense". I'm certain he is stable enough to pass any test or class that you offer but still doesn't carry the correct mental capacity for one.
araby wrote:who the hell needs an AK-47?
Narrock wrote:araby wrote:who the hell needs an AK-47?
Gaazy does when he's deer hunting, just to make it fair.
araby wrote:Narrock wrote:araby wrote:who the hell needs an AK-47?
Gaazy does when he's deer hunting, just to make it fair.
they are specifically for mowing down a bunch of humans in a row.
Narrock wrote:
Imagine what it could do to a herd of those dangerous deer and elk terrorizing the countryside.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
ClakarEQ wrote:Evermore wrote:Tikker wrote:I think you completely misunderstood what I said Evermore
I'm saying that I can fire 50 rounds from a single clip faster than you can swap in and out 5 magazines (firing as you go)
should just be common sense
that makes more sense
and here is the ak-47 info
http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47info.php
Where is the link to how you make the ak-47 100% automatic? I know it exists because you only have to file some minor bits off and there you go, squeeze and hold.
araby wrote:Narrock wrote:
Imagine what it could do to a herd of those dangerous deer and elk terrorizing the countryside.
that's what crazy people who own an AK-47 say.
ClakarEQ wrote:Harrison, you are the exact person that shouldn't have a gun. You want to get a gun because you were victimized. You already wrote in a thread that you could have potentially killed a kid because you thought your life was threatened, I'd STFU if I were you, you are the NRA Anti-poster child.
Evermore and party, tell me how you would stop someone like a Harri who has been victimized and now only wants to own a gun for "self defense". I'm certain he is stable enough to pass any test or class that you offer but still doesn't carry the correct mental capacity for one.
Not one post from Evermore or others regarding the "need" for guns has a remote solution to reduce gun violence.
Please tell me what you would propose to reduce gun violence.
IMHO you should force the cost of a grain of gun powder to $1.00 a grain. You guys are right, it isn't the guns, it is the people, and money makes folks do all sorts of crazy shit.
You want to have guns as your hobby, hey no problem, so what if you want to fire off 100 rounds at the range this weekend, it won't be my problem if it costs you $10,000.00 to do it.
Would that not be a solution? Raise the cost of each round to an unreasonably high cost.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests