WestCanMan

Not the Queen? What about the whole "landed gentry" thing?

Wow. We just used to say things like "Kill a commie for mommy" or "Kill them all and let God sort them out". You're like a warrior/bard.

I get that you could have the resolve, but if you lost a friend in battle how could you ever say that you killed the exact person who killed them? The quote doesn't leave any room for error imo. Tell that biotch that Arminius says "Hi" lol.

Tighter, yes, but not Dem-style. Eventually you run into the same hurdle with gun control that you run into with abortion - where do you draw the line between one person's civil rights and the lives/safety of others? If someone has an iq under 70 are they banned? [insert joke here] If they had anger issues as a kid are they forever banned? This is just another battle line to move back and forth in the big political brownie points game. The Dems never saw a dead body that they couldn't use for funding or to advance their agenda. (Oddly enough they don't care about babies until a second after they're born, they throw healthy pre-natals in a trash bin and never look back.)

Pretty decent quote. Doubtful that anyone could truly live up to all that but it's a nice sentiment.

Bernie is an idiot. Trump's detractors jump up and scream "Trump puts sanctions against countries" and then they scream "Trump needs to cut countries off". The US-Saudi relationship goes back a bit before 2017. There's a bit of history there. Trump can't just cut ties with every country that's not on the up and up. That's almost every country in the middle east, several countries in Africa and Asia, and even countries like Venezuela who need the help because they were dumb enough to elect socialists...

Lol.

Isn't that a US Marine saying?

Seems like you'd rather hop on the virtue-signalling bandwagon than listen to reason or think. Boges - even with the current level of deterrence at the southern border there is still a massive influx of illegal migrants. It's unsustainable. In China they had to adopt a 1-child per family law because the government couldn't keep up with population growth. Was that racist Boges? I'll reiterate, was that racist Boges? Do you think the Chinese government hates Chinese babies? If the US keeps taking in 700,000 illegals per year where do you get the water for all those people? California doesn't have an endless supply of fresh water. How can you keep up with growing infrastructure problems? You constantly have to upgrade sewer mains, water mains, the electrical grid, build new housing, which means even more infrastructure upgrades, etc. You need more hospitals, more schools, bigger roads, more police, more doctors, more nurses, more social services. And you need more food, but the new urban sprawl is in constant competition with farmers who need arable land. In China they are still closing down farms to build new cities. What do you do with hundreds of thousands of unskilled labourers, who don't even speak your official language, crossing the border every year? A lot of those people will take jobs "under the table", so they won't be contributing to the tax base and they'll be undercutting American workers who do. If you lower the deterrence level at the border that number grows. It doesn't shrink. And once again, it's currently unsustainable. The US doesn't have a duty to just let everyone in who wants in. That's not a thing. Here's a thing - people in Latin American should only have a number of babies that they can afford to feed. They can build up their countries to the point where no one wants to leave. Have you ever been to Costa Rica? Ever wonder why there isn't a surge of Costa Rican immigrants to the US? It's because Costa Rica is nicer than the US. There shouldn't be a need for mass migration. The Dems are urging on this crisis to score political brownie points. They are using toadies who lack critical thinking to spread their message. People are doing it on this site even.

LMAO. So true. The really sad part is, that's the only true judge of our character - what we do when we're in a position of power. If Iran suddenly got their hands on a superweapon, Israel would instantly be flat and the whole world would be kneeling 7 times a day.

Your whole shtick has been saying that CATO, some Republican whose name I don't recollect, and AOC all said basically the same thing. No one else said anything even close to what AOC said. Here's an analogy: Two people said something like "Eyeball and his six kids live in inhumane conditions because his house burned down and they're staying in his one bedroom condo right now." That's bad, but not evil. The third person, IE the AOC stooge, said something like "Eyeball's kids live in inhumane conditions - he forces them to drink from the toilet." Do you get how those statements are not even close to supporting each other? Like, not even in the same ballpark? Are those the same to you eyeball, or is it time for you to admit that you have been wrong 100 times in a row?

IMO that works against it in this context, because easy to use makes it more effective for noobs. I would agree that the bullpup is not as good as the armalite for an elite shooter, as the bullpup isn't quite as accurate as a rifle with the sights further down the barrel. The close-in advantage of a bullpup is somewhat negated when your troops have breeching charges, stun grenades and all that other fun stuff, but nothing in a SF soldier's kit replaces the armalite's ability to take out a target at long range, or a target that's in an area with a lot of civilians. They also have a bit more room to add secondary weapons and bigger scopes, etc on an armalite.

You did.

Thanks for your service and kudos for reaching that level. I'm not advising you, I'm just showing you that I'm not making things up like some diehard Liberal. I'm going along with conventional wisdom. The main criteria for banning weapons is their 1) lethality, 2) ease of use, and 3) concealability in urban environments. That could be mitigated somewhat by an important practical application for hunting, target shooting, etc. The bullpup is king of the big 3 and has no practical mitigating factors imo. It might be more fun if you're into plinking with high-powered rifles, but that's not a major consideration imo.

Thanks for that D93. In that scenario though, there was a lot of room behind him. It wasn't a narrow corridor like a standard hallway. A lone shooter has to move quickly, get exposed walking through doorways, acquire targets quickly, he would have a harder time coming out of a closet or something to engage law enforcement, etc. IMO a bullpup is a far superior weapon in an urban environment to an AR 15. It's like a big brother of the smg, which is again, a close quarters option. No one chooses an smg to go out in the open either.

Wik "bullpup": This isn't designed for the outdoors, it's built to specialize in close quarters. If you ask any swat team member or special forces guy what weapon they'd use if they wanted to conceal a weapon, and then use it at mid-to-close range, to inflict maximum damage in an urban scenario, they'd all choose a bullpup over an AR. None of them would choose the bullpup for hunting big game.

Bullpup is lighter and approx 4" shorter. Going around a corner with a bullpup is not the same as going around a corner with a long gun. The bullpup is easier to conceal. I guess the only thing in favour of the bullpup is the high price point. Anyone who can afford it probably isn't going to rob anyone.

You should know by now exactly where your "inhumane conditions" quote falls short of the mark. 1) It backs the Republicans' claim that there's a crisis at the border (based on overcrowding, underfunding, mass-crossings, human-trafficking, drug-smuggling, influx of criminals, etc) which pre-dates the earliest claims of a similar nature by Dems by about 6 months, 2) it doesn't back AOC's claim that anyone anywhere is forcing people to drink out of toilets. At all.

Dude that rifle with a tactical red dot sight turns a librarian into Rambo. It's quick like a pistol or sawed-off in close quarters, it's still a dead-shot at 100 yards even with a red dot, it's deadly accurate at 400 yards with a scope, and it's got lethal through-wall power when inside a building. It's better than a pistol or a SG or a long gun for close-to-medium range because it does every single thing well in that environment, it's just not a good hunting gun. If you wanted to design a rifle to make law enforcement shit their pants it's that one.

Makes sense, but maybe the Ruger Charger is too easy to get across the border. Are there a lot of .22 handguns that fit commercially-available high-capacity mags?

The reasoning behind the ban on Ruger mags was because they also fit on a Ruger pistol. It makes perfect sense to me. I have a Ruger 10/22 and I can deal with the 10-round mags. It just pissed me off that the price of the 10s went from around $12 ea to $45 ea as soon as the big mags were banned. There are some things that don't make sense though. The Tavor x-95 is a semi-auto bullpup chambered for NATO 5.56 and it's non-restricted. IMO that's a bit extreme. It's not very useful for hunting big game because of the short barrel, the bullpup is designed for close to medium-range combat. It's an urban assault special. I'm against gun control but even I'd ban that one.

Lol. Were you wearing a white, mustard-stained tank top and crushing a beer can when you said that?

Norinco is from China isn't it? Are they any good?

Just a newer version of my old friend, the FN. Lova zat rafelle!

A great leader puts great people in roles where they excel and doesn't micro-manage. They just manage to follow the best advice given. Trump had an advantage over the rest of us by growing up in that kind of environment.