This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

4 billion for two new air force ones delivered in 2021

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

How about a national referendum that Presidents should fly commercial. This fits perfectly into my paradigm. Again the more secure we make our government employees, the more insecure the average citizen becomes.

4 billion could buy back all weapons declared military weapons by congress. Enough with the foreign trips......that is why we have a state department and ambassadors.....oh that is right.....everybody is leaving State. That is four thousand million dollars.

So we have 300 million citizens. I say every citizen at birth be given a biometeric high tech 9 mil hand gun with multiple chips and transmitters which will be issued to the child with a social security number at birth. The child will pick up their free gun which is registered, background checked, and decide if they want to get a license for conceal and carry, or will keep their gun in their home. No transport permit will be required for conceal and carry as it is chipped, and has the 100 yard transmitter, which must be inspected and certified each year to keep the conceal license. If the home gun is going to be transported on public roads, a phone app would issue a permit immediately after gun id, route, dates and times, and purpose of the transport are entered into the pone app. That would guarantee $1,000 for a hand gun for every American, or have our Presidents flying around in a virtual fortress. Past Presidents flew on Military transport......time to pull this collective insanity back......

View user profile
What is a "military weapon" owned by the average citizen without special heavily restricted permit?

The average deer rifle is much more deadly that an ar15.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:How about a national referendum that Presidents should fly commercial.  This fits perfectly into my paradigm.  Again the more secure we make our government employees, the more insecure the average citizen becomes.

4 billion could buy back all weapons declared military weapons by congress.  Enough with the foreign trips......that is why we have a state department and ambassadors.....oh that is right.....everybody is leaving State.  That is four thousand million dollars.


A measly $4 billion? HA! You ain't seen nothin' yet:

Speaking to an audience of active-duty airmen, US Air Force Chief of Staff General David L. Goldfein predicted it’ll only be a “matter of years” before American forces find themselves “fighting from space.” To prepare for this grim possibility, he said the Air Force needs new tools and a new approach to training leaders. Oh, and lots of money.

The USAF and other military officials have been saying this for years, but Goldfein’s comments had an added sense of urgency this time around. Rep. Mike Rogers, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee chairman, recently proposed the creation of a new “Space Corps,” one that would be modeled after the Marines. The proposed service branch, it was argued, would keep the United States ahead of rival nations like Russia and China. The idea was scrapped this past December—at least for now. Needless to say, Rogers’ proposal did not go over well with the USAF; the creation of the first new uniformed service branch in 70 years would see Pentagon funds siphoned away from the Air Force. Hence Goldfein’s speech on Friday, in which he argued that the USAF is the service branch best positioned to protect American interests in space.

To prepare the United States for this possibility, Goldfein said the Air Force needs to invest in new technologies and train a new generation of leaders. On that last point, the CSAF ordered Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast, the commander of Air Education and Training Command, to develop a program to train officers and non-commissioned officers for space ops. “We need to build a joint, smart space force and a space-smart joint force,” Goldfein said.

As reported in SpaceNews, the USAF is asking for $8.5 billion for space programs in the 2019 budget, of which $5.9 billion would go to research and development, and the remaining for procurement of new satellite and launch services. Over next five years it hopes to spend $44.3 billion on development of new space systems, which is 1
8 percent more than it said it would need last year to cover the same period.

https://gizmodo.com/us-air-force-chief-warns-of-space-war-in-a-matter-of-y-1823321806

View user profile
What is a "military weapon" owned by the average citizen without special heavily restricted permit?

The average deer rifle is much more deadly that an ar15.


What is an unsafe car. One that can kill thousands because of faulty brakes in a design flaw which requires recall, or Billy Bob driving around with no brakes where he could kill somebody.

I really do not want to debate what Billie Bob can do as a stall for why we are not recalling faulty brakes across America.

The simple truth is that people need to go online and get a fishing license, a hunting license, or a permit to move my Park Model RV. I personally secured the same myself as we transported the oversize trailer. They knew what we were doing, what we were moving, what route we were moving, what dates and times we would be moving, and what our purpose was( in this case we told each state that the rv was going to Florida. I never once thought that the permit route from each state was cumbersome and in the case of Illinois they had us detour around construction in Effingham as they were concerned about oversize vehicles going through construction zones. Yet, the idea that a person who is on a watch list is seeking to transfer a weapon, or a weapon being transferred without permit will be dealt with swiftly and with certainty. An automatic three day jail sentence. If a person wants to walk over to the school and kill people, he better have his gun in a proper locked transport case or he is going to jail. Oh, and the conceal and carry folks will all be carrying guns which will be built to very stringent safety standards which will let anybody see who is within a hundred yards who has a gun.....as simple as checking the wireless networks which are available for your computer.

Change the subject, make it all about Billy Bob, but do not address the systematic risk to the public by widespread brake defects or non permitted gun transport. The answers are simple when you are barking up the right tree. Please stop the deflection and find the right tree.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:What is a "military weapon" owned by the average citizen without special heavily restricted permit?

The average deer rifle is much more deadly that an ar15.


What is an unsafe car.  One that can kill thousands because of faulty brakes in a design flaw which requires recall, or Billy Bob driving around with no brakes where he could kill somebody.

I really do not want to debate what Billie Bob can do as a stall for why we are not recalling faulty brakes across America.

The simple truth is that people need to go online and get a fishing license, a hunting license, or a permit to move my Park Model RV.  I personally secured the same myself as we transported the oversize trailer.  They knew what we were doing, what we were moving, what route we were moving, what dates and times we would be moving, and what our purpose was( in this case we told each state that the rv was going to Florida.  I never once thought that the permit route from each state was cumbersome and in the case of Illinois they had us detour around construction in Effingham as they were concerned about oversize vehicles going through construction zones.  Yet, the idea that a person who is on a watch list is seeking to transfer a weapon, or a weapon being transferred without permit will be dealt with swiftly and with certainty.  An automatic three day jail sentence.   If a person wants to walk over to the school and kill people, he better have his gun in a proper locked transport case or he is going to jail.  Oh, and the conceal and carry folks will all be carrying guns which will be built to very stringent safety standards which will let anybody see who is within a hundred yards who has a gun.....as simple as checking the wireless networks which are available for your computer.

Change the subject, make it all about Billy Bob, but do not address the systematic risk to the public by widespread brake defects or non permitted gun transport.  The answers are simple when you are barking up the right tree.  Please stop the deflection and find the right tree.

You may as well ban blue cars to mitigate accidents as the faulty logic to your gun control measures.

Again... the average deer rifle is more lethal.

View user profile

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Again... the average deer rifle is more lethal.

And AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN:  

An assault rifle is designed to deliver fatal wounds to multiple individuals within a short time period; it has no other purpose.


You, sir, are completely hopeless.   I will now join Deus in avoiding further wasteful engagement with your teeny tiny one track warped mind.   Have at it.

View user profile
I am probably one of the few who shot a 30 ought six when I was under ten years of age on this forum. The kick hurt. I never hit the turkey hiding behind the telephone poles, but I did it every year until my father died. You are right. A human will get seriously messed up when shot. Wisconsin every year has proof of your thesis. However, where an inexperienced shooter has a deer rifle he is virtually limited to his magazine, where semi and automatic weapons do not require marksmanship......they are designed as military weapons for maximum kill. Please use common sense. Hell, I shot a rifle just five years ago and could not hit a fricking thing compared to when I was shooting regularly. There is a reason they make these weapons easy........please reference my military threads for the answer to the same.

View user profile
I'm not talking to Pkr the forum's resident trolling piece of shit, who everyone should ignore. For one thing, after having debunked his arguments a dozen times and seeing him still make them, I've figured out the poor sod can't read and comprehend things, anyway.

But, just for anyone else who's even slightly taken in by any other worthless jag-off who makes the same kind of "deer rifle" claims that Pkr-the-lonesome-prideless-asshole-who-just-won't-leave-even-though-nobody-wants-him (probably has no friends or family in real life, either, and I can understand why... god, I bet his children hate holidays) keeps making, here are a few gun facts just to counter such garbage-human-fuckwit's yammering-idiot misinformation.

An AR-15 bullet is smaller than what's fired by the average deer rifle, but it's a good deal faster, and, thus, does more damage. There's a reason for that - you don't want a deer rifle pulverizing meat, while in a military situation you don't care because you're not gonna be eating what you hit, and you want it put down instantly before it can shoot back.

There's a ballistic phenomenon called "hydrostatic shock." Human tissue contains a lot of water. If you've ever fired a BB gun into wet mud, you'll notice that the hole in the mud is much bigger than a BB. That's due to the force driving the BB, spreading the mud out into a crater. Well, multiply that by one whole hell of a lot, and you'll understand a little of what a .223 bullet (or 5.56mm if you wanna get all NATO about it) does to tissue. An AR's bullet is relatively small, but there's a lot of powder pushing it, and it travels so fast and hits so hard it leaves a wound channel like a Coke can. It's called "cavitation." And the shock can disrupt other organs -- the impact can drive fluid back so hard that an impact that doesn't hit the heart, but near it, can cause fatal damage from things tearing due to being "inflated" so rapidly.

Ever wonder why so many injuries during the Civil War resulted in amputation? You know, somebody'd just hit hit in the leg, and they'd have to saw the whole limb off? Well, that wasn't just for expediency -- it was because the ammunition they used was so big it wouldn't just break bones -- it would remove chunks of the bones, like take out several inches of it, and you couldn't set the bone anymore; it wasn't just broken, it was gone. So, they'd just have to saw the limb off. Well, a .223 will do something similar, but due to velocity rather than bullet weight. A hit on a bone will usually shatter it.

Also, an AR's bullets have tendency to "tumble" -- they'll go end-over-end, which makes a lot more damage. One weapon notorious for that is the CAR-15, which was basically a shortened version of the M-16 that ARs developed from. Half the time you'd shoot one of those at a target you'd get "keyhole" impacts from the bullet going in sideways. And it's all worse when it gets inside the body. Those bullets will whiz through you like a fidget spinner, mulching everything in their path.

When you're talking the kind of damage an AR's bullet does, discussions of what's "more lethal" are pretty silly. Either one is going to mess up up good, but ARs are designed to kill people. Their ballistics take into account things like going through clothes and even armor. That's not a concern with ammunition traditionally used to hunt deer, although, of course, a deer rifle will also kill you without much problem. But, they're not specifically designed for that, and not for taking out large numbers rapidly, or putting them down fast. Like I said, the things you're supposed to be shooting at with an AR will be shooting back at you.


More info on what an AR's bullet does here:

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/



And nobody but an absolute skill-less douchebag with no respect for the sport goes deer-hunting with a semi-auto. About the only thing people hunt with AR's are varmit animals that they don't intend to eat, because those bullets will tear up way too goddamn much of the meat. The only semi-legit "hunter" I know who has any use for a .223 semi-auto is a guy I know who hunts wild pigs. They run in packs, and he doesn't eat them -- he just hunts them to try to control the destruction they cause. An AR is not a "sporting gun" unless you're a complete twat who needs to spend more time practicing on the rifle range.

And, no, an AR isn't just a "gun that looks scary." There are other weapons that should be out of the hands of the public that look more traditional, like the Mini-14 or an SKS. It still will have a rapid fire rate (even semi-auto, as fast as you can squeeze the trigger) and can be converted to full-auto by various methods, and can take extended clips, holding more ammo. I know it's a popular delusion among right-wing morons that people are just reacting to what the guns look like because they don't understand 'em, but people understand more than right-wingers give them credit for. It's what the gun does that's the problem.

If you get semi-auto .223 rifles off the market, will that end shootings? No, of course not, but it'll cut down the kill rate. People will still be shot with handguns, shotguns, bolt-action rifles... and nobody's likely to ever ban those because at least those do have legitimate civilian uses. But military-style weapons, with faster rates of fire, higher magazine capacity, and more devastating ballistics, are designed to kill people, in large numbers, rapidly. Limiting availability of those will make it harder for killers to do things like shoot NINE HUNDRED PEOPLE like the Vegas sniper did. It won't eliminate shootings completely -- Charles Whitman killed 17 people from a Texas tower back in 1966 with hunting rifles. But he was an exceptional marksman, in a secure elevated location, and if he'd had what the Vegas shooter had, things would have been even worse, most likely. This Cruz asshole was not very skilled and out in the open, but managed to kill 17 largely due to the weapon he had. A semi-auto with .223 bullets makes up for a lot of lack of skill.

Which, come to think of it, is probably why a bunch of incompetent gun nuts like AR's so much. They don't have to be as good of a shot to feel more dangerous.

The other bullshit argument I keep hearing from the NRA's mindless slaves is "are they gonna ban knives next?" Which is really silly. Yes, you can kill people with a knife. But, people can run from a knife. And every time you go after someone with a knife, you've got a fight on your hands, every damn time. You're not likely to win more than two or three fights in a row. And you're not likely to be brave enough to get in the first one. A gun makes killing a lot easier.

Nothing's going to stop all murders. You can't Nerf the world. But you can sure as hell make it harder for people to kill off the numbers of people they're killing.

Oh, and while I'm on it -- the "arm the teachers" argument. That's some horseshit right there. Cops barely hit their targets under stress, so a teacher's gonna try it? When I was in high school, I got (verbally) threatened with guns more times than I can remember by people who never went out to their truck and actually brought the thing in, and I got knives pulled on me twice, but the only time I really thought I might get shot in school was by a teacher. We had this coach who was very high strung. He had big scars on either side of his neck where he'd had to get veins scraped due to hypertension. Big Buford-Pusser-lookin' jerk, always angry, always stupid. He shouldn't have been teaching classes in the first place -- I can't even remember exactly what he taught (I think it was history) because he never really taught anything - the class was basically a study hall. I remember once for about a week he taught our algebra class because the real teacher quit, and the best he could do was tell us, "You know that Camaro, the Z-28? Well, that's like algebra, because it has letters and numbers!" Brilliant, yeah?

Anyway, one day he came in, furious because someone had toilet-papered another coach's yard. So he turns red and purple and starts SCREAMING at us, "I just HOPE one of you little bastards rolls MY yard! I've got a .44 Magnum and I WILL KILL YOU!" He was so unhinged that other teachers had to come in and calm him down, and girls in the class were crying. And yet I'm sure this guy would've been one of the first claiming he needed to conceal-carry to "rescue" us all. Nowdays that guy probably would've gotten fired, but, this was the 1980's in Mississippi, I don't think he even had to talk to the principal.

So, anyway, no... no armed teachers. I've known very few I'd trust with a gun in a crisis.

Another problem with that is confusion when the real cops show up. At my workplace, we had an "active shooter" alert (which was stupid because the "shooter" ended up being some guy who just ran his mouth and didn't even have a gun). Anyway, some guy decided he was going to go rescue his girlfriend in another building, and he got a knife and went to get her. There was no real shooter, but people panicked because there was a guy with a knife, and the cops almost shot the guy, thinking he was causing some mayhem. If teachers are waving guns around, the cops aren't going to know who to shoot when they show up. It's wiser to lessen that confusion.

View user profile
zsomething wrote:I'm not talking to Pkr the forum's resident trolling piece of shit, who everyone should ignore.  For one thing, after having debunked his arguments a dozen times and seeing him still make them, I've figured out the poor sod can't read and comprehend things, anyway.



It's the decades of narcotics abuse that did it. It could happen to anybody born without a brain or a spine. Good idea to ignore him.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum