Jump to content

Derek 2.0

Members
  • Posts

    8,137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Derek 2.0

  1. .......Meanwhile, as tensions ramp up and the United States deploys more forces to the Gulf (and Indian Ocean), at Hill AFB, the USAF's "elephant walk" of F-35As.....no doubt....ready for their second deployment to the Middle East....
  2. For longevity purposes.......... Note that Eurofighter and Rafale left the program, for the very reasons I said they would for years....lack of proper integration into NORAD....the very same reason Canada will purchase the F-35.
  3. And surprisingly.......still in the program As I've been saying for years, the RCAF will get the F-35A, regardless of what "bloggers" and "virtue signalling Liberal party leaders" suggest......
  4. You realize.......gunfire echos in built-up areas? I just provided the number of rounds fired and the timeline.....as stated by the police....this is very basic math.
  5. Ahh no........ The actual timeline of the shooting and the number of rounds fired........rate of fire is calculated from actual rounds fired over a measure of time........not "sounds"
  6. I just did the actual math above for you.......he fired ~1200 rounds total.....over 10 minutes
  7. Ahhh no.....firing an AR at over ~400 rounds cyclic a minute will melt the gas tube......the Vegas shooter fired ~1200 rounds over ~10 minutes.....or about ~120 rounds a minute (a fraction of what an automatic could fire), which equates to four mag changes a minute for an AR with standard capacity mags....... Hence the claim that a bump stock makes a semi-automatic an automatic is wrong.....an actual automatic firearm has a far greater actual sustained rate of fire.....A Russian RPK can empty its 75 round drum in under 2 seconds ........the Vegas shooters firearms, if fired at a similar rate, would be melted steel if they hadn't blown up already. So your claim that Bump-fire stocks make a semi-automatic an automatic firearm is wrong.....and is why the BATF doesn't consider them worthy of being regulated like an actual automatic firearm.
  8. Not even close.....an AR-15 has a sustained rate of fire of ~300 rounds a minute, the same AR with a bump stock will be ~400-500 rounds a minute.....an actual M-16 select fire automatic has a rate of fire of over 900 rounds a minute......unlike the AR though, an M-16 (or any other automatic) has a firing pin, bolt carrier, sear/springs etc designed to tolerate said rate of fire....increasing a gun's rate of fire, to what it wasn't intended to operate at, at best will wear the firearm out faster, at worse, the operator will get a bolt carrier buried into his forehead after the gun stovepipes a round and the cartridges psi blows-up the guns receiver in the operator's hand with said operators head inches from such a failure. "Trained hands" don't operate unsafe firearms.......full stop. Charles Whitman killed and injured dozens with a four-shot bolt action deer rifle........ "trained hands" (the person committing the act) and the type of firearm used is the disconnect here, but doesn't really mater......so why do people like you keep bringing it up?
  9. Ahhh no......bump stocks (and trigger cranks) don't make a semi-automatic "pretty much an automatic"......big difference......bump stocks increase a firearms rate of fire, a firearm designed to cycle with human use (rate a person can pull a trigger).......bump stocks are akin to putting a cement block on a car's gas pedal and calling it a race car.
  10. Good question.......the ATF has reviewed them numerous times and doesn't feel they need to be taken off the market or further regulated under regulations pertaining to laws associated with actual automatic firearms.....even after the Las Vegas shooting, the NRA called on the ATF to review their previous reviews.......
  11. Automatic weapons are perfectly legal in class III States with a tax stamp....... No they don't......Bump stocks don't alter a firearms action in anyway whatsoever, hence a bump stock doesn't make a semi-automatic a select fire/automatic firearm.
  12. You're right, the firearms he had were all legal in the majority of the states, New Zealand and Canada. "Bump stocks" don't make a gun "automatic" anymore than racing stripes and a spoiler make an '87 Honda Civic an F1 car............ suggested public safety aspects aside, they should be taken off the market under the auspice of consumer (end user) safety and liability.......the things are idiotic and dangerous to users and anyone around them. At the end of the day, BATF could take them off the market sans any legislation.
  13. I've heard of that, upwards of 50k joined to support O'Leary.
  14. That's the tough one.....I suspect that many new members joined to vote for O'Leary......if said supporters still vote, I would think Bernier and to a lesser extent Leitch.
  15. Mad Max is different.........Bernier would will be the first Canadian Prime Minister, from Quebec, in decades not beholden to Power Corp........Bernier is cut from the same cloth as the old Social Credit Party, a Party more associated with the West than old Canada, but that always had a dedicated following within Quebec........he is a small "l" Libertarian, a belief more associated with individualism and personal responsibility.......as is said of him, he is at his core a Westerner but born in Quebec.......there is a reason he is picking up endorsements from members of the Wild Rose party. Bernier is an actual fiscal conservative, but isn't a social conservative, and will bring about fresh ideas that Canada needs in the 21st century.
  16. That's a subjective opinion..........Americans (and most in Democratic Commonwealth nations), unlike Canadians, have their rights to property protected.......a Canadian's ownership of property will always be subject to the determinations of any level of government...........without such enshrined protections, good luck with legal recourse against ones own Government.
  17. And you're repeating an incorrect assertion........the very fact that your link mentions hundreds of lawsuits that will be required to build the Wall........versus in Canada, where the local City has more legal protections then its taxpayers....and at its discretion can decide when and where it can force you into forfeiture of "your land".......
  18. The difference is the rights themselves.....in the United States, eminent domain simply allows the US Federal government to purchase (or lease) land from an individual....not to take........so the difference, the US Government is forced to pay fair market value, versus in Canada, where the Government/Crown can simply take (granted by convention, they will offer what they deem fair market).
  19. Interesting.......though I fully agree they all are "socially liberal", I'd question if that is where the similarities end........Bernier has my full support, and will be first on my ballot (and most of my family's ballots), but I have zero intention of marking down either O'Leary or Chong. Funny enough, O'Toole and then Scheer are my next picks.....after that, I probably won't mark anyone else..... For myself, and my family, "Mad Max" is our party "outsider", the chance to shake things up etc........with the full knowledge that O'Toole and Scheer have the support of the elected party members, resulting in gaining the full support of caucus far sooner once made leader...... I still think O'Leary would be a disaster for party unity....
  20. Nowhere near as easily as is done in Canada........where people don't have property rights.
  21. Based on what? (I'm curious, and would like to think you're right....what with being a Bernier cheerleader)
  22. Yet somehow they get get built in the United States.......
  23. That is the rub...........I wonder how many (new) members intent on voting for O'Leary have actually considered their 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc picks........... What scares me as a party member, someone that will not vote for O'Leary or Leitch, is that people that will, end up marking both of these two as 1st or 2nd on their ballot.......anything could happen if Bernier doesn't win in the 2nd round.
  24. Exactly......and likewise from the strategic perspective of the Soviets....The very first target for ones strategic weapons were the other guys strategic weapons, leadership and command & control establishment..... And of course the USN's then TACAMO fleet in conjunction with the SSBN portion of the nuclear trident....... Exactly.......large industrial and population centers would be very low on the initial list of first and second strike targets....Thats not to say some cities with strategic targets found within their limits wouldn't be primary targets of a first strike though..... Exactly....likewise....smart (conventional) munitions themselves have also negated much of the need for low yield battlefield nukes that were still determined a requirement by both sides into the 80s...
×
×
  • Create New...