[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
1st deadeye, my original statement was 10 inches, I thought I said 8, but when someone posted what I said, it just added more credibility to my post for I was only .5 or so inches off.
But again you are doing simple subtraction when it is more complex then that. Once again, you are too simple to understand a complex issue.
Kind of funny, since its you liberals (oops, I mean centrists) that are always accusing us conservatives of being too simple.
No Albinonewt I showed you a link, try page 11 about 3/4's the way or so down. When you resort to calling people names for they don't agree with you, then are acting like a child. If my grandmother gets killed because of the governments rapid belief in a system that is ineffective, then you can bet I will be mad.
I saw you link, so I went to the Kalashnikov official page and gave you that link.
That should at least be enough to demonstrate that your 10 inch theory is at the very least overly optimistic.
I have been in millions of different debates on this forum,
Millions huh?
That's a lot, for a forum about to celebrate it's millionth post (or maybe it just did, I've been out of the loop)
And you accused Army of overstating.
of course I can make one post and it not be intended for the overall discussion, but be on something similar. Hence the AK situation. It was a two part discussion, one was me saying that the AK was the most widely used gun, hence if the terrorist would get any gun, they would have an AK, not saying they would actually get it into a plane. The second is the length, which I have proven to be right, I could care less if it is ineffective without the barrel, that was not the debate. The debate was can an AK be made to be 10 inches. The answer is it can be made to be 10.5 inches or so. Your idea on the barrel being longer then the receiver is funny, if you go check out the web site I provided you, you will see why.
Yes, there were two parts
1) Us saying you were ignorant and completely incapable of understanding anything
2) you proving it
Or if you are too lazy here is it again, but actually the original source for the info.
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka114.html
How do you figure I was lazy? I went and found the official link
Not more of a tool then you Shartly.
Sticks and stone man
Have you ever questioned if your "terrorist" training was actually correct. For not even now do we understand terrorism, back then, we really didn't understand terrorism.
Shartley:
How many terrorists did you try to aprehend that later blew up a building because of you failure?
If the answer is less then 1, I am satisfied his training worked.
We had a debate on the effectiveness of bombing terrorist. I pointed out that with ever civilian that dies from the bombing you will get two in its place.
What, attack of the clones?
Maybe that's a flaw in their society thus making it evident they need to all die?
Ever think of that? We don't become suicide bombers where we're killed. Maybe just maybe it's because western culture is more civilized.
You idea was that civilian casualties are going to happen and some are acceptable, as to what some was, you never said.
No, we said sometimes it's unavoidable, especially when only one of the two sides is doing anything to prevent it
But the fact is one civilian casualty is not acceptable when you consider the overall macro problems with that one death. That is what showed me that your idea of terrorism and how to deal with it is wrong, and you training must have been lacking, like so many was and still is, or you yourself are turning a blind eye to reality and using your training as a means to justify something that you can not justify and want so desperately to justify.
I'm fairly certain Shartley is in the same camp as me in how to deal with terrorists.
KILL THEM
Anything proves weekeness. Remember when Clinton pulled us out of Somlia because a few dozen (horribly tragic) deaths? That was the sign to terrorists that we'll fold if you attack us. If we show weakness they exploit it, they don't try to cuddle us.
A nuclear bomb going off in any country is better then the destruction of the entire world, that is just common sense. And your questioning that lends a lot to your overall ideas.
And me beating you to death is better then me eventually wigging out because of your nonsense and going on a 12 state killing spree. But that doesn't make it a good idea.
And that's a very simplistic and stupid way to look at things CB. The goal is to prevent to use of nuclear weapons completely, and not to just nuke ourselves to save the other cowards. You seem to fail to realize the number one responsibility of any government.
TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS
No 1st deadeye it is
CB, here are my ideas
LIES
It was more like "I'm not telling you my ideas because you didn't think of them yourselves"
Army, here are my ideas
I'd call them facts, not ideas
Shartly, here are my ideas
I'm gonna award Shartley the fact/idea combo award
Well, if the hijackers are going to be ghosts then yes, the gun is probably pretty useless. But if I can't see the hiacker to shoot him how do you propose he overwhelm me?
If you fail to realize that I have shot a lot of guns, I own one, my father owns two, my uncle owns like 15, plus everyone else, then you are only lying to yourself.
CB, the second you start accepting Shartley's and Army's expertise I will accept that you might have once sropped a gun on your foot and called it being a shooter
And goes a lot to your overall reluctant to step back and take what other people say without disregarding it because of your hatred of the source.
Well, I do certainly hate the source. A whole lot. But I didn't always. You had to constently and completely be disrespectgul, deluded, and a liar for months before I started hating the source. It wasn't until you very disresoectful appearence at the 9/11 thread before I made up my mind that your a disgrace to this country.
Thank you AN, for threatening to stick a gun to my head.
Mind if I borrow a page from your book?
"I never said it would work"
1st deadeye, my original statement was 10 inches, I thought I said 8, but when someone posted what I said, it just added more credibility to my post for I was only .5 or so inches off.
But again you are doing simple subtraction when it is more complex then that. Once again, you are too simple to understand a complex issue.
Kind of funny, since its you liberals (oops, I mean centrists) that are always accusing us conservatives of being too simple.
No Albinonewt I showed you a link, try page 11 about 3/4's the way or so down. When you resort to calling people names for they don't agree with you, then are acting like a child. If my grandmother gets killed because of the governments rapid belief in a system that is ineffective, then you can bet I will be mad.
I saw you link, so I went to the Kalashnikov official page and gave you that link.
That should at least be enough to demonstrate that your 10 inch theory is at the very least overly optimistic.
I have been in millions of different debates on this forum,
Millions huh?
That's a lot, for a forum about to celebrate it's millionth post (or maybe it just did, I've been out of the loop)
And you accused Army of overstating.
of course I can make one post and it not be intended for the overall discussion, but be on something similar. Hence the AK situation. It was a two part discussion, one was me saying that the AK was the most widely used gun, hence if the terrorist would get any gun, they would have an AK, not saying they would actually get it into a plane. The second is the length, which I have proven to be right, I could care less if it is ineffective without the barrel, that was not the debate. The debate was can an AK be made to be 10 inches. The answer is it can be made to be 10.5 inches or so. Your idea on the barrel being longer then the receiver is funny, if you go check out the web site I provided you, you will see why.
Yes, there were two parts
1) Us saying you were ignorant and completely incapable of understanding anything
2) you proving it
Or if you are too lazy here is it again, but actually the original source for the info.
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka114.html
How do you figure I was lazy? I went and found the official link
Not more of a tool then you Shartly.
Sticks and stone man
Have you ever questioned if your "terrorist" training was actually correct. For not even now do we understand terrorism, back then, we really didn't understand terrorism.
Shartley:
How many terrorists did you try to aprehend that later blew up a building because of you failure?
If the answer is less then 1, I am satisfied his training worked.
We had a debate on the effectiveness of bombing terrorist. I pointed out that with ever civilian that dies from the bombing you will get two in its place.
What, attack of the clones?
Maybe that's a flaw in their society thus making it evident they need to all die?
Ever think of that? We don't become suicide bombers where we're killed. Maybe just maybe it's because western culture is more civilized.
You idea was that civilian casualties are going to happen and some are acceptable, as to what some was, you never said.
No, we said sometimes it's unavoidable, especially when only one of the two sides is doing anything to prevent it
But the fact is one civilian casualty is not acceptable when you consider the overall macro problems with that one death. That is what showed me that your idea of terrorism and how to deal with it is wrong, and you training must have been lacking, like so many was and still is, or you yourself are turning a blind eye to reality and using your training as a means to justify something that you can not justify and want so desperately to justify.
I'm fairly certain Shartley is in the same camp as me in how to deal with terrorists.
KILL THEM
Anything proves weekeness. Remember when Clinton pulled us out of Somlia because a few dozen (horribly tragic) deaths? That was the sign to terrorists that we'll fold if you attack us. If we show weakness they exploit it, they don't try to cuddle us.
A nuclear bomb going off in any country is better then the destruction of the entire world, that is just common sense. And your questioning that lends a lot to your overall ideas.
And me beating you to death is better then me eventually wigging out because of your nonsense and going on a 12 state killing spree. But that doesn't make it a good idea.
And that's a very simplistic and stupid way to look at things CB. The goal is to prevent to use of nuclear weapons completely, and not to just nuke ourselves to save the other cowards. You seem to fail to realize the number one responsibility of any government.
TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS
No 1st deadeye it is
CB, here are my ideas
LIES
It was more like "I'm not telling you my ideas because you didn't think of them yourselves"
Army, here are my ideas
I'd call them facts, not ideas
Shartly, here are my ideas
I'm gonna award Shartley the fact/idea combo award
Well, if the hijackers are going to be ghosts then yes, the gun is probably pretty useless. But if I can't see the hiacker to shoot him how do you propose he overwhelm me?
If you fail to realize that I have shot a lot of guns, I own one, my father owns two, my uncle owns like 15, plus everyone else, then you are only lying to yourself.
CB, the second you start accepting Shartley's and Army's expertise I will accept that you might have once sropped a gun on your foot and called it being a shooter
And goes a lot to your overall reluctant to step back and take what other people say without disregarding it because of your hatred of the source.
Well, I do certainly hate the source. A whole lot. But I didn't always. You had to constently and completely be disrespectgul, deluded, and a liar for months before I started hating the source. It wasn't until you very disresoectful appearence at the 9/11 thread before I made up my mind that your a disgrace to this country.
Thank you AN, for threatening to stick a gun to my head.
Mind if I borrow a page from your book?
"I never said it would work"
Comment