Jump to content

ArdmoreRyno

Community Member
  • Posts

    1,565
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ArdmoreRyno

  1. 18 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

    i think people watch too many movies where they think a clean shot with .223 will automatically kill someone.  a smaller high powered round like that will go right through you and not hit any major organs and 10 seconds later you will be like why am i bleeding?  did i get shot?  lol.  hit someone with some buck shot in close range and you will have a closed casket for sure.  now which one is the "assault weapon?"


    You mean the subway station in John Wick 2 where they’re shootings at each other with suppressors and no one blinks due to ZERO noise... it’s not true? 

     

    lol

     

    The same people who think movie guns are real life are the ones who want bans on things like silencers. 
     

     

    • Haha (+1) 1
  2. 20 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

    The gun type is about power, and hate, and spells success for these nuts.

    Your simple view is ridiculous, and fails to even consider reality.

    Russia can kill Ukrainians with hand guns, but they are much bolder with powerful weapons, n-bombs, chems, tanks etc


    Russians are killing Ukrainians with handguns? What? lol 

     

    and he’s 100% right. A Mossberg 500 with 00 shot would do more damage than an AR in a room. 

  3. 1 minute ago, Gugny said:

     

    So you can look at the gun violence statistics in this country and honestly say that removing all semi-automatic weapons is extreme??  Common man.  That's not extreme.  It's logical.

     

    Explain how'd you even begin to do that.  A few things... 1. Most people would tell the government to f-off and 2. Most small town LEO and sheriff's in conservative states (like all of middle-America) would also tell the federal gov. to f-off. I know for a FACT, my county sheriff would never be part of a gun 'take back' program. 

     

    So how are you going to take semi-auto firearms from people? Good luck with that. 

     

  4. Just now, Gugny said:

     

    This is very badolish.  Hmm.  Anyhoo ... you can toot your horn as much and as loudly as you want.  If you were that good, you'd be able to shoot an unarmed ***** animal in the heart with one shot.  But you need to be able to fire a shot per second.  Something's not adding up, here.

     

    Again, you know zero about hunting. 

     

    Lots of wild hogs stop to allow you to shoot them in the heart. Who cares about the ones who charge you while you're walking through the woods. 

     

    You ever been to Oklahoma, Texas, etc? Hell, you have to carry when you hunt for f'ing morel mushrooms' because of the hog problems. My brother in law had a hog tusk go through his forearm AFTER he shot it (he was walking back from a deer stand when it charged him, he shot it once with a .45 and it continued to come after him). 

     

    But you know better. Right? 

    You're an embarrassment. 

  5. Just now, Gugny said:

     

    Honestly, who gives a rat's ass about your military experience?  That means LITERALLY nothing.

     

    You exclude the rest I see.. LOL 

     

    My point? I am probably one of the best shooters you'll ever talk to online or offline. I was able to attend sniper school in the Army until they told me I'd have to go through 11C training (I was an 88M) to be allowed to attend. I've been ranked nationally with the AR-15.

     

    You skipped everything else I said. Not surprised. 

  6. 2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

     

    I'm 61 years old and had our house broken in to in  Oakland 12 months after we bought it.  Caught 2 people looking in the windows on our security cam when it as listed for sale.  The home across the street was broken into three times in the five years we lived there.  We had strangers knock on our door in the middle of the night several times.  I called OPD several times with suspicious activity out front.   And here's the kicker.  The original owners were victims of home invasion.  Tied up and beaten for six hours.  So just because you know no one who has had their homes broken in to doesn't mean the rest of us care about YOUR odds.  I care about protecting me and my family if I live somewhere that requires my protection. 

     

    And BTW this is not the slums of Oakland.  That house is now valued on Zillow at $1.4m  

     

    But you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. Nor should anyone else.... just because Gugny hasn't had anyone break into his home and he can kill a wild boar with a pocket knife. 

  7. 3 minutes ago, Gugny said:

     

    I'm 51 years old and know exactly zero people who've had their house broken into.  I like my odds.

     

     

    Who gives a sh*t about your life experiences? Just because you and your imaginary friends have never had a break in... that doesn't mean the 2.5+ MILLION houses broken into don't exist.

     

    This happened down the road from where I lived a few years ago... but you've never had to deal with it, so others shouldn't have that right. 

     

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/28/three-burglars-entered-an-oklahoma-home-the-owners-son-opened-fire-with-an-ar-15-deputies-say/ 

  8. 2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

     

    Ah, here we go.  This is always so cute.

     

    I don't watch the View.  I don't watch CNN.  I am not a Biden fan.  I was not a Hillary fan.

     

    Now that THAT's out of the way ... If you need a semi-automatic weapon to HUNT, then you should either find another hobby or, perhaps, start hunting rabbits or something.

     

     

    I served in the US Army, competed nationally with the AR-15 platform, I now just do it locally and I hunt. 

     

    You have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about when it comes to firearms and hunting. Zero. So why don't you stick to something you understand. This is something, you don't.  

  9. 3 minutes ago, Gugny said:

     

    There is literally ZERO need for any person to have semi-automatic weapons.  Hunting?  No.  Home defense?  No.

     

    They are made for one purpose ... killing people.

     

    Absolutely nothing good comes from them being available.  Nothing.

     

    You want to feel macho?  Go buy a big truck with big tires and one of those exhausts that runs up behind your windows.  

     

    Oh Gawd, here we go. 

     

    You're incorrect on all accounts. As I said in an earlier post... the AR platform is now one of the most popular, if not THE most popular, hunting platforms in the United States. I hunt with one, my family does, nearly every I know uses them. AR-10's are perfect for deer. AR-15/300AAC Blackout is a must for hunting hogs. I don't want to use a bolt action when firing on a wild boar. I've seen them charge after being shot 3 times. 

     

    Home defense? No? WTF are you talking about. Are you just a troll? 

     

    Nearly ever firearm in America is a semi-automatic. Only revolvers, black powder and pump action shotguns aren't. 

    1 minute ago, Gugny said:

     

    My definition of a semi-automatic gun is one that does not need to be cocked between shots fired.

     

    I am not anti-gun and I am pro 2nd amendment.  But it's antiquated.  There is no reason for anyone to have semi-automatic weapons.  Their only purpose is to kill people.

     

    We need less of that.

     

    Clearly, you are. And again, you're so wrong on the "only purpose" quote. 

     

    I competition shoot, I hunt and I have firearms to protect my family.

  10. 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

    This is one reasonwhy Tibs is such a fool. The gun did what it was supposed to do- the trigger was pulled and it fired. The gun doesn’t know if it’s aimed at a target , a criminal etc. Should a vehicle manufacturer be sued by people whose family members were killed by the nut job who drove through a crowd? Focus on the criminals please! But hey, Libs rarely do. 

     

    Same thing with knives or hell, hammers. 

     

    443 people were killed by hammers in 2019. That's more than killed by ALL rifles the same year. 

  11. 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

    I'm not sure about the definition exactly, but I don't think that would be a huge problem if they were were to be banned, which they wouldn't be. 

     

    And state right's allow people to buy things in one state and use in another, so a federal ban would be better, imo. 

     

    My solution would be to allow the makers of guns to be sued for their use in massacres like this . 

     

    Why exactly? Should the people of Nice, France be allowed to sue Renault?

    • Thank you (+1) 1
  12. 14 minutes ago, TH3 said:

    i dunno ...maybe people who want to own a firemarm prove they are responsible and capable enough to enough to own them and remain accountable for their possesions? 

     

    Soooo.... the woman who's been threatened by her ex, of death, has to prove something before she can go buy a revolver to protect herself? Take a class? Wait a month? 

     

     

  13. Just now, Tiberius said:

    It's not? I thought anything could be an assault weapon? So frisbee is an assault weapon but an ar 15 isn't, got it 

     

    You failed to answer my question. 

     

    Is a "Glock 17" or any other semi-automatic handgun, an "Assault Weapon"? Not a difficult question to answer. 

     

    (and again, you've missed his point) 

×
×
  • Create New...