Derek 2.0
-
Posts
8,138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Derek 2.0
-
-
.......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....
-
On 2/25/2016 at 9:51 PM, Derek 2.0 said:
With the proposed Hornet replacements, including the F-35? Next to nothing, but its mooted, because he holds a political position and receives advice from those within his department that do........the question is on the ability to act on said advice...to date, the results speak for themselves, in that Canada hasn't left the F-35 program, nor has the MND stated the F-35 won't be the replacement for our Hornets.
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.
-
5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Has nothing to do with Canada for program costs or development...Canada is the lowest Tier 3 partner...mostly for politics and jobs.
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......
-
Just now, Omni said:
Ahh, yes. Just like you can determine the speed of an aircraft (such as one flying into the WTC) from video, you can determine number of rounds fired from the audio of same.
1 minute ago, Omni said:you can determine number of rounds fired from the audio of same.
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.
-
Just now, Omni said:
But he did it with a choice of 23 weapons that were found in the suite. None were full auto but apparently only one had a bump stock. And yep, it probably got hot. Hence the arsenal. The fire rate was calculated from sound on video.
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"
-
2 minutes ago, Omni said:
If you do the actual math, the Vegas shooter was firing around 540 rounds as opposed to around 780 you can get from a fully automatic.
I just did the actual math above for you.......he fired ~1200 rounds total.....over 10 minutes
-
8 minutes ago, Omni said:
Don't know what you call close, but it took the Vegas shooter using a bump stock about 3 seconds less to fire 100 rounds than you can with a fully automatic.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Omni said:
Not really a very good comparison. A bump stock in trained hands can fire almost the same number of rounds as a full automatic in the same time frame.
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.
QuoteThe fact that the trigger gets pulled at each round really doesn't matter does it. Especially if you're on the receiving end such as in Vegas.
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?
-
1 minute ago, Omni said:
With the bump stock in place on the weapon of someone who knows how to use it, you have pretty much an automatic weapon in terms of number of rounds that can be fired in a given time. And yes, when you remove the bump stock the weapon reverts to semi.
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.
-
3 hours ago, eyeball said:
Then why don't they?
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.......
-
9 hours ago, Omni said:
Automatic weapons are not legal in the US other than for military.
Automatic weapons are perfectly legal in class III States with a tax stamp.......
9 hours ago, Omni said:Ah, yes they do.
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.
-
9 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:
that indicated it would be illegal to own the arsenal he had.
You're right, the firearms he had were all legal in the majority of the states, New Zealand and Canada.
9 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:no ban on bump stocks (which is what he used to make his weapons automatic).
"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.
-
On 1/26/2017 at 7:33 PM, Derek 2.0 said:
Despite such polls, O'Leary has to sign up a whole bunch of voters over the next two months.........and I wouldn't be surprised, like he himself has suggested, if he bows out and plays "kingmaker" once it becomes apparent he won't win......or he gets bored.
And said "King" is Bernier....
-
23 hours ago, Newfoundlander said:
259,000 people are eligible to vote.
I've heard of that, upwards of 50k joined to support O'Leary.
-
4 hours ago, Argus said:
Got this email from Scheer today. So who will get O'Leary's support?
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.
-
5 hours ago, Argus said:
But I have to admit I'm reflexively opposed to yet another Quebec leader. None of them have been any damned good.
Mad Max is different.........Bernier
wouldwill 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.
-
15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
So there's no difference, really. Are property rights in the US constitution ?
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.
-
4 minutes ago, dialamah said:
I repeat: Private property rights do not in fact exist in the States any more than they do in Canada, despite the paper rights.
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".......
-
13 minutes ago, dialamah said:
Easily or not, they still do it. So what's the difference? Americans have property rights on paper, but not in fact.
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).
-
1 hour ago, Newfoundlander said:
Just my opinion. I think they have similar economic messages to an extent and are in-line on social issues. Although the three candidates are quite different, I've seen a bit of overlap in support for Bernier and Chong and to a lesser extent O'Leary.
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.
1 hour ago, Newfoundlander said:Many of their supporters are looking for a candidate who's bolder on policy and different than Harper. Scheer and O'Toole could be well positioned for a final two spot but would O'Leary go to them?
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....
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
Yeah, doesn't the government there just take the land when the want it?
Nowhere near as easily as is done in Canada........where people don't have property rights.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Newfoundlander said:
If he doesn't make it into the top two I'd say his supporters would likely go to Bernier.
Based on what? (I'm curious, and would like to think you're right....what with being a Bernier cheerleader)
-
2 hours ago, Newfoundlander said:
bring up that you'd never get pipelines built if they were.
Yet somehow they get get built in the United States.......
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, August1991 said:
When O'Leary is eliminated (and he will be), his second-choice ballots will go where?
=====
Newfoundlander, it is all about second-choice ballots.
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.
Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Carry on ?