Lol. Even you aren't ignorant or dumb enough to not know this is a well known white supremacist racial hate slogan, not an equality movement slogan, not a non inflammatory statement.

Edit...when you see bald white guys wearing t-shirts printed with "14-18-88" you would insist they're just clean cut math enthusiasts. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Um....take another English class Vlad, I think you mean nuts infer hate, because you just called your own cohorts nuts. It's crystal clear they are implying hate with these pro white fliers being posted only in minority areas and schools, not predominantly white areas and schools....you need #10 RWNJ goggles to hide that fact from yourself.

Rightwing cowardly assholes can't stand behind their own hate in public, but revel in it when they're together in private. You're cohorts are afraid to admit who they are, so afraid of everything they're afraid of themselves, or at least they're afraid of the repercussions of exposure. That's why they can't admit what's obvious to everyone who isn't delusionally biased....that they're racist.

Remember, it's RWNJ's like yourself that totally lost their shit and continue to be triggered today over "black lives matter", insisting it's a racist movement and slogan...now they want to hide their obvious racist intent by pretending they're emulating that social justice movement when challenged...it's laughably transparent.

I guess you didn't watch this video, because there was plenty of right wing fear there....ending in the creation of your fear...."it's not ok to be white"...a Fox news created slogan you were terrified by. Boy do they have your number.

You are helping them spread the white supremacist message by only looking at life with your blinders and right wing goggles on.

while I am absolutely delighted to watch both the democratic and republican parties LOSE their minds over AOC,and watch them bumble and stumble all over themselves to discredit this 29yr old Latina spitfire.

the political establishment continues to miss the plot,because they live in their own tiny,elitist bubbles.

every time they attempt to marginalize her,attack her outright,shame her,belittle her...
her numbers go up.
the republicans try to attack her by exposing her ideas as laughable,but what they are really doing is campaigning for her.
she literally gets more popular every time FOX news has ben shapiro on to "expose" AOC as the "loony left".

and the democrats may actually be MORE afraid of AOC than the republicans!
they are trying to primary her out of her seat,which he has only been in a few weeks.
which has seen AOC's war chest boom with private,small amount,donations.


they (meaning the establishment,corporate lackeys in congress) along with their corporate media stooges.

are doing their best to paint AOC as a "kook" as a "crazy" as somehow not being an actual representative of what normal folk want in a representative.

just like they did with nader,paul,sanders..


but it looks like the American people are finally on to the games of the kleptocrats.

and AOC has become the youngest and most popular congresswoman..ever.


because AOC Is not a kook,or a crazy.

she is whip smart and politically savvy.

and in five minutes she lays out the ease of corruption in our government.


suck a dick trumpters!

*promote

A journalist's job isn't just to sit there and passively report what Trump says to you - that would be no different than any official party propaganda. Move to North Korea if that's what you want from your reporters. The media IS the conscience of any democracy, and it is their job to hold Trump accountable for his brazen lies.

That is why the first thing any fascist, communist, and/or dictatorship does to consolidate power is to attack the media and end free press. Trump is doing the same, lying to gullible people like you to discredit any news source that doesn't work in his favor. His lies seems to have worked on you because somehow you think CNN is the "trashiest", when there are things like Fox, Sinclair, and Breitbart, which are no longer news but have moved fully into the realm of blatant propaganda.

And it's laughable that Trump supporters are now crying for respect, when they showed no such thing to Obama. Just your every day Republican hypocrisy.

Also, I'm curious as to what "good" Trump has done. Sure if you're a racist bigot and you like the idea of separating Mexican children from their parents, Trump is your man. Other than that I'm curious what else you believe he's done for America.

"To date, he says, the US has conducted tests on this type of missile system but to his knowledge none have been successful, flying for just a few seconds. "

Basically, Putin made a laughable claim that Russia already has a mach 10 missile, so China and the USA jumped down the rabbit hole.

Kind of like when Reagan started up the SDI star wars BS. Which some people believe led to the USSR dramatically boosting their defense spending, nigh bankrupting themselves and breaking up as a country.

So am I and my wife. Love British drama, crime & mystery shows. They're far more plot-drive and less needlessly dramatic (i.e. more realistic to me at least) than the majority of Hollywood fairs.

The completed Broadchurch (UK ver.) series was excellent too. The US version was laughable in contrast, even if they hired the SAME lead.

I'm unsure as to what Noir is arguing against.

He makes valid points about people in poorer neighbourhoods being able to defend themselves. I mean, to me, that's a damning indictment of the failure of civil society in the US, but let's ignore that for the moment.

Almost no one is suggesting banning guns, and there are very few countries with an outright ban on firearms. But there are plenty of places with simple, sensible gun laws that have been proven to work... none of which would have any of the negative impacts Noir is talking about.

It's like arguing against speed limits by claiming people need to drive to work.

Also, the "prevent a tyrannical government" argument? Jesus, that was obsolete 100 years ago. 50 years ago, it was laughable and to suggest that any kind of armed citizen uprising could make any kind of dent in any modern military, much less the worlds biggest, is bordering on insanity.

An AR-15 isn't going to do jack shit against a tank, and you're not even going to see a predator drone coming.

But upvote and kudos to him for discussing this is in a rational manner.

Deplorable in manners. Laughable at their mentality of prioritizing highest-value food items for consumption regardless of taste & variety. Still smarter than those buffet eaters that pig out on carbs.

Hope they don't sick from all the cholesterol from the shrimps.

Da comrade.
Bob, when you can't speak English it becomes impossible to have an adult conversation, and clearly evident you aren't American, but not a bit clear what you're saying.

Individuals break the law on occasion, that does not a secret cabal or deep state conspiracy make. Most of what you complain about is Trump being opposed for ignoring the law and constitution. Consider his administration is on track for the most indictments and most convictions ever, barely in his second year, most of which are tied to treasonous activities against the United States, so I get that you have to believe the entire world is conspiring to destroy his presidency, otherwise you must admit you support the most criminal, least competent president ever. Even Regan's administration averaged under 20 filed indictments per year, you can find that many from multiple single individuals in Trump's administration, I think you can actually find an unprecedented over 20 charges plead guilty to in year one, which kind of destroys the 'witch hunt' conspiracy accusations.

Baselessly accusing the organizations that are investigating him for treason of conspiracy would be laughable if not for people like you who back him up. Because of people like you, it's incredibly harmful to our government, laws, and nation, another indicator you live in Kiev and work for Putin.
I could be wrong about where you live, but I'm not wrong about who your stated views benefit.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

Right, well these are all pretty easy, and the point was exaggeration for comedic effect...

It's not funny, but if one wanted to actually be instructional, the fine line now would be something like: can I ask a woman out a third time after she turned me down twice, the difference between telling a woman "You look great" and "that dress looks great on you" + looking her up and down, should you ever tell a woman you work with you're attracted to her, can I proposition a woman a second time if she's still at my place after a date and said no once? If not, can I ask her to leave then? Can I play that song Baby its cold Outside or Blurred Lines at the office party? Can I tell a joke about sex and should I stop when a woman enters the room, or does that make it worse?

IMO, it's not helpful to pretend it should be obvious and everyone who doesn't get it is a laughable idiot or creep. Or to insist that there's a definite line and you're either a "decent person" or a "complete wanker"... most of us are somewhere in between and vary day to day. Or to say "if it feels wrong it IS wrong"... obviously some men have their feels calibrated differently and would benefit from the rules to being more explicit.

Either that, or the answer to all of these is "depends on the woman..." you just need to get to know them, and even then you probably will make a mistake.

No.

That's like saying the worst thing to happen with going out with friends for a drink is to be shot dead by a guy who didn't like you checking out his girlfriend.

A date doesn't end in rape. If your meeting with a person ends in rape, it never was a date to begin with. To say it was a date assumes the victim made a wrong choice at some point. Or worse, that the shitball would have allowed a different outcome.

Sexual assaults may have shades of gray, but I believe rape is rape. The idea of "date rape" would be laughable it it wasn't so moronic.

Dates and rapes are mutually exclusive.

You're actually calling the Democrats in congress obstructionists? I'm reasonably certain we have as many federal vacancies as we do largely due to the Republican congress of the past several years doing their damnedest to block every single thing Obama tried to get done. That accusation is phenomenally hypocritical. I certainly acknowledge the current congressional Democrats have been voting no or voting to not proceed quite a bit lately, but they've also been cut off from the process of lawmaking to the highest degree possible. You can't expect cooperation from people that you don't even let sit at the table while laws are being drafted and discussed.

That last word was a joke of course - there's been damn near no discussion of this bill. The last time the United States had a major tax overhaul was also under republican oversight, in 1986. During the course of creating that legislation they took over 6 months and had more than a dozen hearings on it, ensuring reasonable transparency. This latest bill was slapped together over a few weeks and had a completely opaque process.

You claim the Democrats "fucked Americans" because they added 8 trillion to the debt. My understanding is this bill, over the next 10 years, will add a minimum of another trillion. The fact that it's so negative overall will also, due to existing law, require a balancing by way of cutting other programs - Medicaid at the least is expected to see major cuts, just as a side effect of this bill. Of course, it isn't really a side effect per se, they just couldn't get enough R votes if they either made the necessary changes to keep the bill deficit-neutral or included the provision that would've waived the mandatory cuts. So it's laughable to claim the current Republicans in congress really have an interest in being fiscally conservative or even moderate.

I'm likely wasting my time here though, as I don't think you're actually interested in engaging in an honest conversation, nor do you seem to be open to changing your viewpoint at all. I wonder though whether you know enough about politics from the last several decades to have a guess as what Republicans from the Reagan era would think about how things are being done today. My guess is they'd be appalled, but perhaps I'm overestimating them.

I would love to be able to get medical marijuana easily in Texas. But the bill they passed in 2015 had so many restrictions it is laughable.

You can only get it if you get low-thc oil. You can only be prescribed it for epilepsy and only then if you haven't responded to federally approved treatments. Assuming you meet those guidelines, you need two different doctors that must be registered with the DPS to both agree that no other medication will help you.

Not bad enough? The state has dragged its feet on actually licensing companies to grow cannabis to make the oil, so that 2 years after the bill was signed a couple of companies are just now able to ramp up production. Then they will need time to convert the product to oil and THEN the state will take some more time to make sure the product 'meets specifications'.

This stupid thing is you can already get low-thc oil on the internet legally that is roughly the same strength. Plus it restricts the most active compound, THC, so it limits drastically who will actually gain any benefit from it.

Since I suffer from two different ailments, both which have been shown to be helped by actual cannabis instead of the oil, I am SOL. I have to take a huge dose of Cymbalta and become zombie-like for a good part of the day, or I can suffer crippling anxiety/depression/fibromyalgia pain. The other fun thing is that the Cymbalta exacerbates my IBS, the other ailment I have that cannabis has been shown to help.

I could cut out a drug with horrible side effects and take a natural drug that could help every single symptom I have, with the only side effects being paranoia and the munchies. But then the pharma company would miss out on the roughly one grand a month that my pills cost my insurance. Can't have that!

PS: That price is for generic Cymbalta now that it is available. Originally it was closer to 2k a month for name brand. Another fun side effect? Cymbalta also fucks up your sex drive, sometimes making you impotent but more frequently making it nigh impossible to orgasm. So you can get erect as a male, but good luck finishing.

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol.

If someone wanted to kill with each shot on moving targets at 3-400 yards in the dark, yeah, 5 seconds+- per shot still seem reasonable, maybe half that for someone who practices on living, moving targets often. Your claim some people can continuously do that 120 times a minute including mag changes is just laughable. They might shoot that fast, but not hit anything accurately at that distance.

You have to prove it to convince me...better? If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't.

My claim is you will have more control at full auto than absolute maximum possible finger speed.
My other claim is you will put more lead down range with most full autos. In a crowd situation where missing is basically impossible and aiming wasted effort, like this one, more bullets means more damage. Once the crowd dispersed, aiming a high powered rifle would probably be more effective, but not before. Were this not the case, why would any military allow them, ever?

In this Turkey shoot situation, you get more hits on target in full auto. In target shooting, you won't. This was not a series of targets at 20 yards, it was a target zone at 3-400 yards in the dark.