Congratulations NRA, two media members have fallen to your cause

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You show a certain ignorance Timmie. Lethality applies to the round and not the weapon. Functionality applies to the weapon. There are two kinds of AKs and more than two kinds of ARs. The standard model AK is a .30 caliber round and the standard AR is a .223 round. Now the velocity of a rifle round adds to the lethality of the round if you use the Taylor table. The Taylor table (I won't bore you with formula) gives you a number that represents on a scale the amount of force that can be inflicted on the human body. It is a matter of mass times velocity times cross sectional area. A .45 gives massive truama. Much more than the .223 does and the equal of the .30 caliber. The 9 mm gives less trauma. Each round because of the design of the weapon has additives. A .223 is designed to be barely stable so when it impacts a body it becomes unstable and tumbles causing more damage not because of the bullet but because of the weapon design.

Now functionality applies to how many rounds and how fast they accurately be fired. Within 25 feet, with a competent shooter, the .45 is more deadly than the AR15. It can be deployed faster and the first center body hit will end the contest. Same thing can be said for the .40 S&W, 10 mm, .44 magnum, and even the .357 magnum. Out past 50 feet and beyond, the rifles have the advantage because of accuracy. Depends on the shooter. I've seen a good pistolero make consistent hits at 100 yards.

Your knowledge of firearms is lacking a certain ground level knowledge base. You may have read something or thought you knew something but you were wrong.

How about a little test Timmie. If you were loading a .45 auto for a Model 1911-A1, Series 80 what would you use for propellant, the primer, the round, and how much propellant would you use for what muzzle velocity? A very simple question. The first round I learned to reload.

You're an idiot. You can't even decide what functionality applies to, since you say two different things.

You then say a .223 round is designed to break apart when striking the body, but then you attribute it to weapon design and not the design of the projectile. A .223 can be fired by many different types of weapons and it is the projectile that remains the same, not the weapon itself. You love to sound good, but it's all bullshit, buddy.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

So is abortion. Get over it.

Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. Therefore it isn't protected by the constitution. Congress on the other hand can pass abortion laws which would not be in violation of the constitution.

Jim

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. Therefore it isn't protected by the constitution. Congress on the other hand can pass abortion laws which would not be in violation of the constitution.

Jim

It is currently legal and constitutional. Do you deny this?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

It is currently legal and constitutional. Do you deny this?

It maybe legal but that doesn't make it protected by the constitution. Abortion Laws can be reversed. We are only giving women the right to an abortion through the enactment of laws not the constitution.


Jim

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're an idiot. You can't even decide what functionality applies to, since you say two different things.

You then say a .223 round is designed to break apart when striking the body, but then you attribute it to weapon design and not the design of the projectile. A .223 can be fired by many different types of weapons and it is the projectile that remains the same, not the weapon itself. You love to sound good, but it's all bullshit, buddy.

Read again nimrod. I wrote that the bullet becomes unstable and tumbles. Nothing in there about the bullet being frangible. The twist of the rifling in the barrel (weapon design) causes the bullet to just inside the envelope of stability. Change the medium (air to flesh) and the bullet becomes unstable resulting in a tumbling action. The bullet itself causes little damage but the tumbling and multiple strikes on various organs is what causes the damage. You need to find someone to read this stuff to you.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

It maybe legal but that doesn't make it protected by the constitution. Abortion Laws can be reversed. We are only giving women the right to an abortion through the enactment of laws not the constitution.


Jim

Wrong again.

"In the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutional, based on Ninth Amendment and 14th Amendment rights."

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Read again nimrod. I wrote that the bullet becomes unstable and tumbles. Nothing in there about the bullet being frangible. The twist of the rifling in the barrel (weapon design) causes the bullet to just inside the envelope of stability. Change the medium (air to flesh) and the bullet becomes unstable resulting in a tumbling action. The bullet itself causes little damage but the tumbling and multiple strikes on various organs is what causes the damage. You need to find someone to read this stuff to you.

You need to go back and read this again. Very slowly. "The bullet itself causes little damage, but the tumbling and multiple strikes on various organs is what causes the damage". Those are your words.

What do you think is tumbling? The bullet, maybe? What is striking the organs multiple times, to cause the damage? The bullet? And yet you start the sentence with the statement that it isn't the bullet that causes the damage. You also said the .223 round was designed to do this, and then you said it was the weapon that was designed to do it. Can't decide which, huh?

You can't make stuff this stupid up, it only comes from the mind of shitasses like you. You need to find someone to write AND read this stuff for you, you dumbass cocksucker.

And I notice you didn't address the functionality issue, crawfish cocksucker.

[The_Waco_Kid]

two media members have fallen to the fat gay loser black cause. go celebrate that you libtard idiot.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Wrong again.

"In the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutional, based on Ninth Amendment and 14th Amendment rights."

That case didn't make Abortion protected by the constitution. If Abortion was protected by the constitution it would have never been up for debate. What that case signifies are the provision that legalize abortion. They are using the 9th and 14th Amendments to establish the legality of abortion in the first and second trimesters. Of course with the fucked up people in this country it wouldn't surprise me if the law is stretched all the way into the third trimester a week before a child due.

Jim

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

That case didn't make Abortion protected by the constitution. If Abortion was protected by the constitution it would have never been up for debate. What that case signifies are the provision that legalize abortion. They are using the 9th and 14th Amendments to establish the legality of abortion in the first and second trimesters. Of course with the fucked up people in this country it wouldn't surprise me if the law is stretched all the way into the third trimester a week before a child due.

Jim

They don't go by trimesters anymore. Catch up. They changed it to viability in 92. I never said it was protected by the constitution, I said it was constitutional and as of right now, that statement is true.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're an idiot. You can't even decide what functionality applies to, since you say two different things.

You then say a .223 round is designed to break apart when striking the body, but then you attribute it to weapon design and not the design of the projectile. A .223 can be fired by many different types of weapons and it is the projectile that remains the same, not the weapon itself. You love to sound good, but it's all bullshit, buddy.

I got to agree with Woomby here JD, the round is not designed to fragment, nor is it designed to "tumble". Rather it tumbles inside the body because it lacks the necessary weight to smash through bone and dense material, so it is easily deflected inside the body. The design is the use of a 55 to 65 grain projectile. A dead soldier needs no care a wounded soldier requires 3 people to care for them.

Bottom line though, the "assault rifle" as it is called by the media is a very poor choice for a killing weapon in a mass murder situation. The benefit of the rifle is that it can deploy a large number of rounds at a greater distance, this is not the situation in most mass shootings, which are usually confined areas, with large numbers of people. In this situation a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with BB's would be the choice. BB's provide a dense shot charge but a larger spread then say 00 buck, which would allow for hits on multiple targets. Why no clamor for the banning of shotguns.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

I got to agree with Woomby here JD, the round is not designed to fragment, nor is it designed to "tumble". Rather it tumbles inside the body because it lacks the necessary weight to smash through bone and dense material, so it is easily deflected inside the body. The design is the use of a 55 to 65 grain projectile. A dead soldier needs no care a wounded soldier requires 3 people to care for them.

Bottom line though, the "assault rifle" as it is called by the media is a very poor choice for a killing weapon in a mass murder situation. The benefit of the rifle is that it can deploy a large number of rounds at a greater distance, this is not the situation in most mass shootings, which are usually confined areas, with large numbers of people. In this situation a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with BB's would be the choice. BB's provide a dense shot charge but a larger spread then say 00 buck, which would allow for hits on multiple targets. Why no clamor for the banning of shotguns.

Don't fall for the school yard bully tactic. I NEVER said that a .223 broke apart, fragmented, or is frangible. Those are his words. What I did say was that the .223 in the modern AR15 (or M16) is designed by benefit of the twist of the rifle barrel to become unstable as it leaves one medium (air) and enters another (flesh). This is not to say (it has to be said to idiots like NBK) that a bullet entering flesh is going to bounce around like a pachinko ball. It will become marginally unstable causing an elongated wound which increases the likelihood of a deflection if solid matter (a bone) is struck. These deflections were what made the original bullet so effective. Those of you who are old enough remember the stories coming out of Vietnam about ineffective wounds. That is because the Army in it's wisdom changed the twist of the barrel from 1:14 to 1:12 making the projectile more stable. Eugene Stoner was right and the Army was wrong.
I am more familiar with the M14 as that is what I carried in my duties. A .30 caliber round that was capable of successive hits out to nearly a 1,000 yards by some shooters of which I was one in those days.

Don't buy into the stupidity and ignorance of NBK.

I am also waiting for TIMMIE to amaze us with his knowledge of how to reload a .45 ACP round. I know, it takes time to look this stuff up and make it sound like you know what you're talking about.

[LovingKayla]

OK WOW this might be the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen in here. I find it hard to believe there are people that believe this way. Disarm the honest so the dishonest have a better shot. Go Democrats.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

OK WOW this might be the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen in here. I find it hard to believe there are people that believe this way. Disarm the honest so the dishonest have a better shot. Go Democrats.

That's surely what the liberals hope for Kayla. And look at how well it's working for them in the cities run by the dumbascraps- Chitcago and Detroit !

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You show a certain ignorance Timmie. Lethality applies to the round and not the weapon. Functionality applies to the weapon. There are two kinds of AKs and more than two kinds of ARs. The standard model AK is a .30 caliber round and the standard AR is a .223 round. Now the velocity of a rifle round adds to the lethality of the round if you use the Taylor table. The Taylor table (I won't bore you with formula) gives you a number that represents on a scale the amount of force that can be inflicted on the human body. It is a matter of mass times velocity times cross sectional area. A .45 gives massive truama. Much more than the .223 does and the equal of the .30 caliber. The 9 mm gives less trauma. Each round because of the design of the weapon has additives. A .223 is designed to be barely stable so when it impacts a body it becomes unstable and tumbles causing more damage not because of the bullet but because of the weapon design.

Now functionality applies to how many rounds and how fast they accurately be fired. Within 25 feet, with a competent shooter, the .45 is more deadly than the AR15. It can be deployed faster and the first center body hit will end the contest. Same thing can be said for the .40 S&W, 10 mm, .44 magnum, and even the .357 magnum. Out past 50 feet and beyond, the rifles have the advantage because of accuracy. Depends on the shooter. I've seen a good pistolero make consistent hits at 100 yards.

Your knowledge of firearms is lacking a certain ground level knowledge base. You may have read something or thought you knew something but you were wrong.

How about a little test Timmie. If you were loading a .45 auto for a Model 1911-A1, Series 80 what would you use for propellant, the primer, the round, and how much propellant would you use for what muzzle velocity? A very simple question. The first round I learned to reload.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Read again nimrod. I wrote that the bullet becomes unstable and tumbles. Nothing in there about the bullet being frangible. The twist of the rifling in the barrel (weapon design) causes the bullet to just inside the envelope of stability. Change the medium (air to flesh) and the bullet becomes unstable resulting in a tumbling action. The bullet itself causes little damage but the tumbling and multiple strikes on various organs is what causes the damage. You need to find someone to read this stuff to you.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Don't fall for the school yard bully tactic. I NEVER said that a .223 broke apart, fragmented, or is frangible. Those are his words. What I did say was that the .223 in the modern AR15 (or M16) is designed by benefit of the twist of the rifle barrel to become unstable as it leaves one medium (air) and enters another (flesh). This is not to say (it has to be said to idiots like NBK) that a bullet entering flesh is going to bounce around like a pachinko ball. It will become marginally unstable causing an elongated wound which increases the likelihood of a deflection if solid matter (a bone) is struck. These deflections were what made the original bullet so effective. Those of you who are old enough remember the stories coming out of Vietnam about ineffective wounds. That is because the Army in it's wisdom changed the twist of the barrel from 1:14 to 1:12 making the projectile more stable. Eugene Stoner was right and the Army was wrong.
I am more familiar with the M14 as that is what I carried in my duties. A .30 caliber round that was capable of successive hits out to nearly a 1,000 yards by some shooters of which I was one in those days.

Don't buy into the stupidity and ignorance of NBK.

I am also waiting for TIMMIE to amaze us with his knowledge of how to reload a .45 ACP round. I know, it takes time to look this stuff up and make it sound like you know what you're talking about.

You said at least twice that multiple strikes once it hit the target regarding the .223. How is it striking multiple times if it is not breaking up?

In fact the .223 WAS designed to break up on impact, so you denying the frangibility further illustrates your ignorance on the subject. You have denied saying that twice no, so no crawfishing on that subject. Just retreat back to your cave, you've been humiliated.