And then there's unAmerican assholes that have no problem wiping their asses with the Constitution and denying citizens their rights without due process.
.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...
- Thread starter nat4900
- Start date
And then there's unAmerican assholes that have no problem wiping their asses with the Constitution and denying citizens their rights without due process.
.
IsaacNewton
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2015
- 17,308
- 3,697
- 290
I know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)
Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:
Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)
The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......
They know this and don't care. These are people who only consider what happens in front of their face. Other people barely register.
- Moderator
- #83
You mean upholding the constitution? Crazy Republicans. How dare they not take away our rights without due process!
Moron.....there is NOTHING in the Constitution to prevent a state's secession from the union.....YET, we had a fucking civil war to prevent something that the Constitution does not state.
And that has what to do with this discussion?
Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,293
- 280
Let's just go ahead and put another nonsensical liberal diatribe to bed ....
Hillary Clinton claimed Monday that even more people would have been killed in the recent Las Vegas massacre if the shooter had used a “silencer.”
“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”
2 Oct
Hillary Clinton
✔@HillaryClinton
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.
Follow
Hillary Clinton
✔@HillaryClinton
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.
Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.
Clinton was making a pointed reference to a bill Congress is considering to ease restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearm suppressors.
Verdict: False
Clinton’s claim implies that gun “silencers” reduce the noise made by the shooting of the bullet and the bullet’s flight and impact to a point of near inaudibility. Neither implication holds up to the facts.
Fact Check:
A gun “silencer” or suppressor operates by “containing” the gases and fiery exhaust that are released upon the firing of a bullet. This release of high pressure gas and exhaust results in the loud sound associated with gunshots.
How loud a gunshot is depends on what gun and bullet are being fired. An average gunshot is around 140 decibels (dB), a unit that measures sound. Gun experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation that gunshots from assault rifles and automatic firearms, such as those used in the Las Vegas shooting, measure around 150 to 160 dB.
(For perspective, a busy city street measures around 80 dB loud.)
Suppressors similarly vary based on design and size in how much of this sound they can absorb.
Joshua Waldon, CEO of the gun suppressor designer and manufacturer SilencerCo., estimated to TheDCNF that unsuppressed gunshots range between 155 to 165 dB, while suppressed gunfire range in the “upper 130s,” a 20 to 30-decibel drop.
TheDCNF also examined a 2005 experiment that measured gunshot sound levels produced by over 120 combinations of guns, bullets, and suppressors. The experiment involved multiple assault rifles and automatic guns. The average sound level produced by the unsuppressed test shoots was over 160 dB. The average sound level produced by the suppressed test shoots was just over 135 dB, leaving an average 25 dB difference.
These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving, respectively, of sound levels.
This supports Clinton’s notion that gun “silencers” or suppressors make gunshots significantly quieter. The issue, however, is that suppressed gunfire is still loud. Sound levels in the “upper 130s” decibels are comparable to those of a rock concert or sports crowd.
“It’s not like the movies,” SilencerCo. CEO Waldon told TheDCNF. “There’s zero reflection of what you see in Hollywood. It’s still loud.”
Gun suppressors lower gunshot sound levels “from simply ear shattering to very loud,” a New York-based gun hobbyist and Second Amendment advocate explained to TheDCNF.
The sound of the gunshot, however, is just half of the equation. There is also the sound made by the flight and impact of the bullet, both of which are affected by the speed of the bullet.
Suppressors’ effect on bullet speed is “low to nonexistent.”
The noise made by a bullet’s flight, often referred to as the sonic crack, is a “constant crack during the entire flight of the bullet because it’s flying [faster than] the speed of sound,” Waldon explained to the TheDCNF. “It’s an extremely loud, very loud sound.”
An experiment conducted for a 2014 outdoorsman and shooting training manual measured the sound made by variously sized bullets from a rifle, with and without a suppressor. Sound measurements were taken 165 feet away from the rifle. The experiment indicated immaterial changes in bullet flight sound levels with suppressor use.
This was just one experiment involving only one gun and suppressor with three different bullet sizes. Still, numerous gun experts and advocates confirmed its findings to TheDCNF – suppressors don’t reduce much sound from bullets already traveling faster than the speed of sound.
TheDCNF could not identify any publicly available measurements of the exact decibel sound level of bullet impacts at comparable ranges to the Las Vegas shooting with and without suppressors. Gun experts and hobbyists, including former military personnel, however, described bullet impacts as “just as loud as a bullet [being shot].”
Clinton claimed that the use of gun suppressors or “silencers” by the Las Vegas gunman could have worsened Sunday night’s tragedy that left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded on the basis that the crowd would not have heard the gunshots in time to flee. Although it is not confirmed yet if the shooter indeed was not even using a suppressor, Clinton’s claim relies on implications of how gun and gun suppressor mechanics work that do not hold up to the facts.
FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence ‘The Sound Of Gunshots’? |
------------------------------------------------
I trust we will hear no more nonsense about "silencers".
Hillary Clinton claimed Monday that even more people would have been killed in the recent Las Vegas massacre if the shooter had used a “silencer.”
“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”
2 Oct
Hillary Clinton ✔@HillaryClinton
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.
Follow
Hillary Clinton ✔@HillaryClinton
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.
Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.
Clinton was making a pointed reference to a bill Congress is considering to ease restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearm suppressors.
Verdict: False
Clinton’s claim implies that gun “silencers” reduce the noise made by the shooting of the bullet and the bullet’s flight and impact to a point of near inaudibility. Neither implication holds up to the facts.
Fact Check:
A gun “silencer” or suppressor operates by “containing” the gases and fiery exhaust that are released upon the firing of a bullet. This release of high pressure gas and exhaust results in the loud sound associated with gunshots.
How loud a gunshot is depends on what gun and bullet are being fired. An average gunshot is around 140 decibels (dB), a unit that measures sound. Gun experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation that gunshots from assault rifles and automatic firearms, such as those used in the Las Vegas shooting, measure around 150 to 160 dB.
(For perspective, a busy city street measures around 80 dB loud.)
Suppressors similarly vary based on design and size in how much of this sound they can absorb.
Joshua Waldon, CEO of the gun suppressor designer and manufacturer SilencerCo., estimated to TheDCNF that unsuppressed gunshots range between 155 to 165 dB, while suppressed gunfire range in the “upper 130s,” a 20 to 30-decibel drop.
TheDCNF also examined a 2005 experiment that measured gunshot sound levels produced by over 120 combinations of guns, bullets, and suppressors. The experiment involved multiple assault rifles and automatic guns. The average sound level produced by the unsuppressed test shoots was over 160 dB. The average sound level produced by the suppressed test shoots was just over 135 dB, leaving an average 25 dB difference.
These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving, respectively, of sound levels.
This supports Clinton’s notion that gun “silencers” or suppressors make gunshots significantly quieter. The issue, however, is that suppressed gunfire is still loud. Sound levels in the “upper 130s” decibels are comparable to those of a rock concert or sports crowd.
“It’s not like the movies,” SilencerCo. CEO Waldon told TheDCNF. “There’s zero reflection of what you see in Hollywood. It’s still loud.”
Gun suppressors lower gunshot sound levels “from simply ear shattering to very loud,” a New York-based gun hobbyist and Second Amendment advocate explained to TheDCNF.
The sound of the gunshot, however, is just half of the equation. There is also the sound made by the flight and impact of the bullet, both of which are affected by the speed of the bullet.
Suppressors’ effect on bullet speed is “low to nonexistent.”
The noise made by a bullet’s flight, often referred to as the sonic crack, is a “constant crack during the entire flight of the bullet because it’s flying [faster than] the speed of sound,” Waldon explained to the TheDCNF. “It’s an extremely loud, very loud sound.”
An experiment conducted for a 2014 outdoorsman and shooting training manual measured the sound made by variously sized bullets from a rifle, with and without a suppressor. Sound measurements were taken 165 feet away from the rifle. The experiment indicated immaterial changes in bullet flight sound levels with suppressor use.
This was just one experiment involving only one gun and suppressor with three different bullet sizes. Still, numerous gun experts and advocates confirmed its findings to TheDCNF – suppressors don’t reduce much sound from bullets already traveling faster than the speed of sound.
TheDCNF could not identify any publicly available measurements of the exact decibel sound level of bullet impacts at comparable ranges to the Las Vegas shooting with and without suppressors. Gun experts and hobbyists, including former military personnel, however, described bullet impacts as “just as loud as a bullet [being shot].”
Clinton claimed that the use of gun suppressors or “silencers” by the Las Vegas gunman could have worsened Sunday night’s tragedy that left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded on the basis that the crowd would not have heard the gunshots in time to flee. Although it is not confirmed yet if the shooter indeed was not even using a suppressor, Clinton’s claim relies on implications of how gun and gun suppressor mechanics work that do not hold up to the facts.
FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence ‘The Sound Of Gunshots’? |
------------------------------------------------
I trust we will hear no more nonsense about "silencers".
Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,293
- 280
Man, it's a real bitch when truth gets in the way of your narrative, huh?I know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)
Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:
Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)
The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......
They know this and don't care. These are people who only consider what happens in front of their face. Other people barely register.
What a surprise - yet another thread standing on the still warm bodies of victims shouting to take away rights based on nothing more than raw emotion with nary a fact in sight.
And once again, we will be subjected to this idiocy for the next few months with nothing different than before. I tire of your need to trample the constitution when you are unable to get an amendment passed so that you can 'feel' safer without any actual tangible change.
And once again, we will be subjected to this idiocy for the next few months with nothing different than before. I tire of your need to trample the constitution when you are unable to get an amendment passed so that you can 'feel' safer without any actual tangible change.
ThunderKiss1965
Platinum Member
What's the criteria for getting on the no fly list, from what I hear its almost impossible to get off it when a mistake has been made. There is no trialI know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)
Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:
Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)
The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......
Same for mental capacities.
You destroy your entire argument for using a make believe device as a point THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS A SILENCER.
How many times has an automatic weapon been used in a mass shooting ? Automatic weapons are not illegal but the process of obtaining one legally is long invasive and expensive.
Or you can get a bump stock for almost nothing like this guy did...What's the criteria for getting on the no fly list, from what I hear its almost impossible to get off it when a mistake has been made. There is no trialI know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)
Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:
Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)
The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......
Same for mental capacities.
You destroy your entire argument for using a make believe device as a point THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS A SILENCER.
How many times has an automatic weapon been used in a mass shooting ? Automatic weapons are not illegal but the process of obtaining one legally is long invasive and expensive.
My position is to ban all semi-automatic firing systems, permit only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns. I'm willing to compromise on some semi-automatic firing systems. That's my compromise. What's yours?Close the gun show loophole. Background checks on a national database. Ban semi-automatic firing systems.
I didn't ask what you wanted to happen ... I asked what was your compromise.
Getting everything you want isn't any kind of compromise ...
.
Ban all future sales of semi-auto's ? Or are you talking about a confiscation ?
Or you can get a bump stock for almost nothing like this guy did...What's the criteria for getting on the no fly list, from what I hear its almost impossible to get off it when a mistake has been made. There is no trialI know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)
Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:
Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)
The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......
Same for mental capacities.
You destroy your entire argument for using a make believe device as a point THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS A SILENCER.
How many times has an automatic weapon been used in a mass shooting ? Automatic weapons are not illegal but the process of obtaining one legally is long invasive and expensive.
And if you ban those, they can be made easily at home.
- Oct 23, 2013
- 22,062
- 12,230
- 1,435
My position is to ban all semi-automatic firing systems, permit only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns. I'm willing to compromise on some semi-automatic firing systems. That's my compromise. What's yours?
Your position still indicates what you want ... And what you are willing to compromise is not something you can 'provide'.
You cannot say you are willing to give up something you don't have as a compromise ...
Simple Analogy:
You walk up and say we are going to wear the same color shirt, and you are willing to make it the color blue and not the color red as a compromise.
Your choice of blue instead of red isn't a compromise ... Because we never agreed you had the right to say we would wear the same color shirt, much less get to pick the color.
.
Last edited:
Windparadox
Gold Member
`My position is to ban all semi-automatic firing systems, permit only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns. I'm willing to compromise on some semi-automatic firing systems. That's my compromise. What's yours?
`
That sounds like a prudent, common sense and balanced approach.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,076
- 2,645
Why don't libs prove they can handle gun violence in 1 city - like Chicago - before declaring they know what is best and are most capable to take care of the entire country.
The only things more gun legislation would do would be to give liberals / politicians more power, make Americans less safe, strip Americans of Rights, and benefit the ctiminals who already igore existing laws.
The only things more gun legislation would do would be to give liberals / politicians more power, make Americans less safe, strip Americans of Rights, and benefit the ctiminals who already igore existing laws.
- Oct 23, 2013
- 22,062
- 12,230
- 1,435
That sounds like a prudent, common sense and balanced approach.
So if you were a butcher and I walked up and indicated I was going to steal all your chickens, but decided to compromise and only steal half of them ... Would you think it was a prudent, common sense and balanced approach ... Or would you tell me I couldn't steal your chickens ...
.
Windparadox
Gold Member
`So if you were a butcher and I walked up and indicated I was going to steal all your chickens, but decided to compromise and only steal half of them ... Would you think it was a prudent, common sense and balanced approach ... Or would you tell me I couldn't steal your chickens ...
Nonsensical analogy.
- Oct 23, 2013
- 22,062
- 12,230
- 1,435
`So if you were a butcher and I walked up and indicated I was going to steal all your chickens, but decided to compromise and only steal half of them ... Would you think it was a prudent, common sense and balanced approach ... Or would you tell me I couldn't steal your chickens ...
Nonsensical analogy.
Just as nonsensical as thinking Nosmo's compromise was any kind of compromise ... Much less prudent or balanced ...
I mean it isn't like compromising the degree to which you do something you don't have the authority or right to do is actually a compromise.
.
Last edited:
My position is to ban all semi-automatic firing systems, permit only bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns. I'm willing to compromise on some semi-automatic firing systems. That's my compromise. What's yours?Close the gun show loophole. Background checks on a national database. Ban semi-automatic firing systems.
I didn't ask what you wanted to happen ... I asked what was your compromise.
Getting everything you want isn't any kind of compromise ...
.
I'm willing to end the ban on automatic firing guns and start repealing gun laws. We already have too many.
Windparadox
Gold Member
`Just as nonsensical as thinking Nosmo's compromise was any kind of compromise ... Much less prudent or balanced ...
Being a gun owner myself; I'm not influenced by the NRA or the pro-gun extremists and see a need for tightening up restrictions on who can own a gun. I'm willing to consider anything logical, including the posters suggestion.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 172
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 130
- Views
- 8K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 210
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 164
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 122
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8046
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-