|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: The biggest and most egregious|
The biggest and most egregious
Posted - 1/14/2013 3:21:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
First it was "floating guns"
Now it is the statement that military weapons are designed to wound not kill. This just gets better and better. Next, a tooth fairy versus the Easter Bunny smackdown.
Still want to claim this forum can be saved?
Posted - 1/14/2013 3:44:00 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm not going to respond to
every hysterical know-nothing who posts on here but this is a fact: Military rifles were designed to WOUND, not kill. I learned this when I was in the military (and they should know).
That is why...when the US was replacing the venerable M1 Garand... they went with the 5.56mm (.223) round instead of the 7.62mm (.308) of the WWII/Korean War era.
Posted - 1/14/2013 4:06:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
Exactly what I thought....
In understand the Army will be using Daisy pellet guns in the future. Lord knows there is too much danger in shooting the enemy with the guns they use now, they might accidentially kill someone.
Posted - 1/14/2013 5:53:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
Cruiser, "ballistics expert"
Well. while the diameter is just a little bit bigger...
the .223 BULLET is almost as big as the whole .22 cartridge. The .223 also pack a lot more gunpowder to launch that bullet.
And thus it causes dramatically more damage on impact.
How do i know this?!
the great folks at the AR-15 forum!
COMPARISON PHOTOS INCLUDED!
Love these quotes:
".223 is 1.5 times the mass of the .22cal and a HELL of a lot more powder to push it along at a MUCH higher velocity.
.22cal Marlin will knock the guts out of a squirrel.
.223cal AR15 can blow the lungs out of a large cow."
cuiser... who thinks a large cow .. or enemy in the sights of a solider .. is the same as 'small game" .. Please, tell a US marine their weapons is only good to hunt rabbits.
Posted - 1/14/2013 9:04:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
Me, me, me, oh yesssss!
Everyone talk about me! All the time.
I'm this, I'm that... oooooh! It makes me tingle.
I'm not narcissistic, I'm WONDERFUL!!!
I love me so.
Posted - 1/14/2013 10:15:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
well, you have to understand cruiztwit's..
company clerks weren't issued live ammunition, so he wouldn't know..
anyone who is stupid enough to equate a .22 round with a .223 round is beyond idiocy..and no longer worth paying ANY attention to..on anything..
Posted - 1/14/2013 10:29:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
"the .223 BULLET is
almost as big as the whole .22 cartridge"
Deliberately dishonest and misleading. While that may be true of the .22 SHORT (which has a much shorter and lighter bullet), the comparison is between the .22 LR (long rifle) and the .223...and it is ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE. The bullet of the .223 is about 3 TENTHS of an ounce heavier than the .22 LR (55 grains vs. 40 grains)...or about the weight of one house fly.
AND it is absolutely accurate that the .223 is LESS powerful than the .22-250 and 220 Swift varmint rifles, both of which have been around since the 1930s.
The rest of your bullsh*t is...well, bullsh*t.
Posted - 1/14/2013 10:57:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yep. We're there. cruise has jumped the shark.
Gone over the deep end. I swore I was going to stay awy from his idiocy (and I will try again after this) BUT HOLY CRAP ON A CRACKER. He's against the Gubmint from even taking away our
WELL REGULATED MILITARY RIFLES because--wait for it--
"the objective of a military rifle is NOT to kill but to wound."
Well if that don't beat all. We Sent all those millions of soldiers into war with a pool cue?!?! Our troops overseas are supposed to lean over the wall with their XM-25 and yell "Bang! You're dead!"
'My gun's bigger than your gun--so just quit now before someone get's hurt' "the more people who are tied up caring for the wounded the fewer who are avaiable as fighters."[sic] So THAT was the reason for the 'Surges'?!?! It was all an Iraqi and Afghan plot!!! We needed more medics for the guys for the guys who couldn't shoot anymore!!
What are tanks and artillery for? 4th of July??
And when faced this absolute total desperate lunacy--does cruise back down?? in any way shape or form?? HELL NO. Lets compound the stupidity!!
"hysterical know-nothing who posts on here but this is a fact: Military rifles were designed to WOUND, not kill. I learned this when I was in the military (and they should know)."
YOU WERE IN THE MILITARY???? Armed with a automatic weapons solely designed to tickle somone to death?? Who's side??
But let's just keep babbling on about .22 short or .22 long or .22-250 and 220 Swift varmint rifles or 223 is about 3 TENTHS of an ounce heavier 55 grains vs. 40 grains or lighter bullets vs. long guns---I'm sure those 20 kids in heaven feel better knowing they were accidentally killed with a weapon designed just to wound somone....
(PS to blackedtape, thanks) (And I sill think this forum can be saved--if a certain someone who has been doing this for more than sixty years--and he knows what he's talking about--cleaned his arsenal with kerosene. Those things aren't designed to kill anyone anyway. donchaknow)
Posted - 1/14/2013 11:03:41 PM | show profile | flag this post
And since my BP is running high...
The total lunacy that is cruise made me think of this....
(cruise) "I've been doing this for more than sixty years. I know what I'm talking about. Y'see, one of the things you know-nothing gun-grabbers DON'T know is that the objective of a military rifle is NOT to kill but to wound"
We should have been doing this all along:
Posted - 1/15/2013 12:21:40 AM | show profile | flag this post
This is proof positive
that the left wingers have been had...hung out to dry. They don't have a friggin' clue what they're talking about when it comes to firearms...or the philosophy of military arms...and they KNOW they don't...and they know I DO...so they're trying to muddy the waters and obscure the discussion with ad hominem and personal attacks. This is SO typical that one could write a book...
Posted - 1/15/2013 9:06:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
The only "proof positive" here
Is that you need professional help cruiser. You dig yourself into a deep hole by saying something so ridiculous there is no way you could ever provide one piece of supporting documentation that you reduce yourself to the "I am so correct that I don't have to prove it and you know I am correct but just will not admit it" response. This is your pattern on every thread.
Well here is a challenge coming from someone is who anything but a left winger. Provide one document, one link, or anything other than your own words to back up your statement that the goal of military weapons is to wound not kill. You have personally ruined this forum with your constant unsubstantiated rants. One by one people who just want to exchange thoughts and ideas with others who may have differing opinions have left this forum due to the overwhelming magnitude of your posts. This is your one chance to keep a conservative voice here. I will be interested to see how you respond. I look forward to freely admitting I am wrong when you back up your statement.
Posted - 1/15/2013 10:00:43 AM | show profile | flag this post
The idea that military weapons are designed to wound and not kill is insane!
The AR-15 -- the prototype for the M-16 -- had a single requirement from the military during development.
It had to fire a round that could penetrate a steel helmet and exit the other side of the steel helmet.
You're wild claim that the M-16 (and it's prototype) are "non-lethal" weapons is absolute insanity.
Tons of laughs all around from our "casual readers!"
Posted - 1/15/2013 10:02:22 AM | show profile | flag this post
Cruzo better be careful with his Red Ryder AR-15 -- he might shoot his eye out!
Posted - 1/15/2013 11:14:37 AM | show profile | flag this post
"you need professional help cruiser"
Are you joining grateful dud's self-styled, home-schooled practice of psychiatry?
You're as nuts as the far left wingers you're trying to emulate.
Posted - 1/15/2013 11:52:17 AM | show profile | flag this post
"penetrate a steel helmet and
EXIT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STEEL HELMET" (Emphasis mine)
No, CONARC's requirement was to "penetrate a standard U.S. steel helmet, body armor, or a steel plate of 0.135 inches (3.4 mm) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound at 500 yards (460 m), while equaling or exceeding the "wounding" ability of the .30 Carbine."
It says NOTHING about exiting the other side (you've been caught dishonestly exaggerating...again) AND IT SAYS "WOUNDING ABILITY," not killing ability.
The US armed services understand...as the "journalists" on here have proved they do not...that a wounded soldier requires much more in personnel and resources than a dead soldier. And attrition is the objective of war.
Posted - 1/15/2013 11:53:09 AM | show profile | flag this post
Ok cruiser that's the first sentence..
Now care to respond to the rest? If you are going to read and respond to each sentence one at a time it could take a while. Why not just jump down and take my challenge? Please.
Posted - 1/15/2013 12:08:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
Cruzo has discovered Wikipedia!
I entered his line and it popped up word for word from the Wiki entry for the M-16.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle (About a quarter of the way down -- under CONARC).
Now if cruzo had actually served in the military ("Call of Duty" doesn't count, little man), he'd understand what the term "'wounding' ability" actually meant.
You don't want to wound lethal threats close to you. A wounded soldier can still kill you. A dead one can't.
But nice try.
Maybe you'd better stick to the NRA talking points handed to you by people who really know about guns, cruzo.
You sure as hell don't.
Posted - 1/15/2013 12:11:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Now care to respond to the rest?"
You appear to have opinions...warped as they are...and you're entitled to them. But you present no challenge to me and nothing to which I see any need to respond.
Posted - 1/15/2013 12:14:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
And etwinkie is making
this thread sillier by the minute. It's become a waste of my time.
Posted - 1/15/2013 1:35:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
Silliness comes from your outlandish claim...
cruzo, that military weapons are only meant to "wound" the enemy.
That is a sure sign you have never been on the front lines -- serving or as a "casual" observer. And that you have never seen the effects of an M-16 "wound" to an enemy KIA.
Perhaps you'd like to argue that the atom bomb was designed to only "wound" the Japanese into surrender.
Or perhaps you could tell us more about your supposed military training where they apparently taught you to shoot the guns out of the hands of the enemy without killing them -- like the Lone Ranger did.
Posted - 1/15/2013 1:38:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
Are We Still Talking About Me?
I hope so.
I've put my shirt on inside out and backwards for the occasion.
Posted - 1/15/2013 1:53:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
I asked you to provide one piece of supporting material for your opinion that military weapons are designed to wound not kill. Your inability to do so just proves the complete lack of credibility on your part. As they say, I am done with you now.