# Are you a Republican, a Democrat, or a Redneck?



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 16, 2010)

*Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck? *

Here is a little test that will help you decide. 

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.

Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you...

You are carrying a Kimber  1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds  before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? 

THINK CAREFULLY AND THEN SCROLL DOWN:






Democrat's Answer: 
* Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! 
* What is a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP? 
* Does the man look poor or oppressed? 
* Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling? 
* Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? 
* Could we run away? 
* What does my wife think? 
* What about the kids? 
* Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? 
* What does the law say about this situation? 
* Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it? 
* Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? 
* Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? 
* Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? 
* If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? 
* Should I call 9-1-1? 
* Why is this street so deserted? 
* We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day. 
* Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. 
* I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus. 
* This is all so confusing! 


............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .. 
Republican's Answer:

BANG! 


............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... 

Redneck's Answer: 

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! 
BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG! 
Click..... (Sounds of reloading) 
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! 
BANG! 
BANG! 
BANG! 
Click 
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy!' 'Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?! ' 
Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!' 
Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist! 


EDIT:  I guess I'm a  Republican...but the only problem with this test is that the Democrat  wouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place...


Please note, this is just a joke. Its not meant to be taken seriously.


----------



## Trichloromethane (Oct 16, 2010)

I'm a common sensest.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

I'm a democratic, liberal, commie. So sue me wanker. 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.


How does that even work and why is the street deserted? Why are we even walking down a street when there's a perfectly good sidewalks. 



> Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you...


 Wait what?




> You are carrying a Kimber  1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds  before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?


I would be questioning where the gun came from, along with several other things. (Like how I ended up with a wife and two kids). 
Then I'd kick his dick in or something. 



> EDIT:  I guess I'm a  Republican...but the only problem with this test is that the Democrat  wouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did I ever mention that you're an ass?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> I'm a democratic, liberal, commie. So sue me wanker.
> 
> How does that even work and why is the street deserted? Why are we even walking down a street when there's a perfectly good sidewalks.
> 
> ...





Dude, its just a joke. Its not meant to be taken seriously. Lighten up man.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Dude, its just a joke. Its not meant to be taken seriously. Lighten up man.


And so was about 90% of my reply. 

The "democrats don't like guns" joke though is kinda old though IMO.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> And so was about 90% of my reply.
> 
> The "democrats don't like guns" joke though is kinda old though IMO.


 

Yeah I know, I haven't heard that joke before and thought I should share it. It made me laugh a bit.


----------



## Fenrari (Oct 16, 2010)

Sadly I don't racial profile as much as the next person. I'd still probably be a democrat in your world.


----------



## Oovie (Oct 16, 2010)

Time to inform your next of kin!


----------



## Catilda Lily (Oct 16, 2010)

I am a democrat I guess. The ones in red actualy went through my mind when I read it.
Democrat's Answer: 
* Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! 
* What is a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP? 
* Does the man look poor or oppressed? 
* Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling? 
* Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? 
* Could we run away? 
* What does my wife think? 
* What about the kids? 
* Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? 
* What does the law say about this situation? 
* Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it? 
* Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? 
* Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? 
* Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? 
* If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? 
* Should I call 9-1-1? 
* Why is this street so deserted? 
* We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day. 
* Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. 
* I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus. 
* This is all so confusing!


----------



## Tycho (Oct 16, 2010)

Fail.  You FAIL, OP.

I'm gonna type up a long response when I finish laughing.

And "joke" my ass.  You're known for having an anti-liberal bent and you're taking a pretty wimpy potshot.


----------



## Seas (Oct 16, 2010)

What kind of halfassed terrorist is one that uses a knife?
Shouldn't he have an Ak-47, or a bomb strapped around his chest?

Anyway, I'd shoot him (in the leg) and still wouldn't be a Republican.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Fail.  You FAIL, OP.
> 
> I'm gonna type up a long response when I finish laughing.
> 
> And "joke" my ass.  You're known for having an anti-liberal bent and you're taking a pretty wimpy potshot.


 
Believe what you want. Its just a joke. And its political. Big deal. Which is why I stated after the post that the joke is not meant to be taken seriously. All I tried to do was share a good laugh. Apparently some people can't take a joke.


----------



## Isen (Oct 16, 2010)

Darn it Grandma I asked you to stop forwarding these things to me.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Apparently some people can't take a joke.


 People know how to take a joke. Though people don't really laugh at bad jokes, unless they made the joke. Then they just look stupid.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> People know how to take a joke. Though people don't really laugh at bad jokes, unless they made the joke. Then they just look stupid.


 
That I understand, not everyone will laugh at it. But to say this : "And "joke" my ass.  You're known for having an anti-liberal bent and you're taking a pretty wimpy potshot."
Thats not liking a joke, thats just being plain rude.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Thats not liking a joke, thats just being plain rude.


 How is that being rude?


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Oct 16, 2010)

This is great.  

I haven't laughed this hard in a while.

According to this thread I would say I am a cross between a democrat and a red neck. 

I would be like why is he coming after me, what did I do?... Aw  forget this, Bang bang.....


----------



## Nyloc (Oct 16, 2010)

You forgot to clarify _what kind of knife_ he was using. He could be running at me with a massive, blunt, rounded table knife. In which case I'd probably just laugh at him.

The Devil is in the details.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 16, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> You forgot to clarify _what kind of knife_ he was using. He could be running at me with a massive, blunt, rounded table knife. In which case I'd probably just laugh at him.
> 
> The Devil is in the details.


 
It does say a huge knife...


----------



## Grimfang (Oct 16, 2010)

I see this as a joke, but it rubs me the wrong way in the same way the occasional forwarded email from my mother does, like the one in which Obama is a "secret Muslim". You know, because he's secretly Muslim, but he doesn't want to tell America until the terrorists win. Anyway, he winds up getting the shit beaten out of him by so many historical figures, and told "Silly, you.. it was X VIRGINIANS! Not virgins! Hah... silly Muslims."

I don't think the world can handle this kind of humor though. Too much stupid exists, and I think these are either created or used to further a certain ideology (or used for trolling purposes). That's probably why these jokes aren't taken lightly... because they pretty much run on lines that will actually be used by many Americans as the bottom lines to their argument as to why "rah rah socialism, we need war, something about Glenn Beck."


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 16, 2010)

Grimfang said:


> I see this as a joke, but it rubs me the wrong way in the same way the occasional forwarded email from my mother does, like the one in which Obama is a "secret Muslim". You know, because he's secretly Muslim, but he doesn't want to tell America until the terrorists win. Anyway, he winds up getting the shit beaten out of him by so many historical figures, and told "Silly, you.. it was X VIRGINIANS! Not virgins! Hah... silly Muslims."
> 
> I don't think the world can handle this kind of humor though. Too much stupid exists, and I think these are either created or used to further a certain ideology (or used for trolling purposes). That's probably why these jokes aren't taken lightly... because they pretty much run on lines that will actually be used by many Americans as the bottom lines to their argument as to why "rah rah socialism, we need war, something about Glenn Beck."



A terrorist can be describing many people. Timothy McVeigh for example, or even a serial killer-that person is terrorizing the populace. Your the one who automatically assumed I was making a snide joke about Muslims.

A terrorist is a person who is terrorizing people. Its all up to the person reading the joke.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> A terrorist can be describing many people. Timothy McVeigh for example, or even a serial killer-that person is terrorizing the populace. Your the one who automatically assumed I was making a snide joke about Muslims.
> 
> A terrorist is a person who is terrorizing people. Its all up to the person reading the joke.


 I think everyone here has agreed that terrorist usually means an extremist of some sort. 

If you were really talking about a serial killer, you wouldn't use terrorist. 

Kinda like if I'm in Britain and I ask for some biscuits. I'll probably gets scones.


----------



## Grimfang (Oct 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> A terrorist can be describing many people. Timothy McVeigh for example, or even a serial killer-that person is terrorizing the populace. Your the one who automatically assumed I was making a snide joke about Muslims.
> 
> A terrorist is a person who is terrorizing people. Its all up to the person reading the joke.


 
Of course, of course. I just said that because it was based off the random example I gave. It just reminds me of the occasional, dreaded *FWD: * that you get in your inbox.

Timothy McVeigh is my favorite terrorist to bring up in discussions like this though, so I guess we agree on that. I just wanted to express why I think some people don't like the joke.. it's politics. Politics are usually designed to divide people, heheh.

But also, the joke suggest that anything other than a Republican/Redneck is an idiot.
I was going to quote the specific points, but I guess that's the punchline. The punchline is basically, "Hah! Those democrats, and anyone who's opposed to war and guns.. they don't know anything about guns, and they just want to go circlejerk-debate with each other about pointless stuff. Couldn't do anything if their family's lives depended on it."

I don't want to be an ass, but I think it's a horrible joke to tell to random people, and then to ask them why they don't like it. It's totally for old people or trolling.


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 16, 2010)

BANG


----------



## Nyloc (Oct 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> It does say a huge knife...


 
Which is ever so descriptive :V

It didn't even say if it was metal or plastic.


----------



## Nyloc (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> Kinda like if I'm in Britain and I ask for some biscuits. I'll probably gets scones.


 
No, you'd get biscuits kind of like these.

If you asked for Scones then you'd get Scones.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 16, 2010)

Why isn't scalping an option?

Why do you gotta be culturally insensitive, OP?


----------



## The_Lightning_Fox (Oct 16, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Which is ever so descriptive :V
> 
> It didn't even say if it was metal or plastic.


 
hmm... somehow i think the Redneck & republican would still shoot if it was plastic...


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 16, 2010)

N/A because I'm gay and would never have a wife and kids :3
Also your thread is fucking stupid, go away.


----------



## Nyloc (Oct 16, 2010)

The_Lightning_Fox said:


> hmm... somehow i think the Redneck & republican would still shoot if it was plastic...


 
I hadn't even considered the fact that the knife might even be imaginary...

They'd probably still shoot.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 16, 2010)

Rednecks carry shotguns.  I am disappoint.  :[


----------



## Tycho (Oct 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.
> 
> Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you...
> What the fuck? That isn't a terrorist.  That's a mugger or a nutter.
> ...



:|

And fuck your font.


----------



## Koronikov (Oct 16, 2010)

>.> Redneck i think hanging out w/ Shark is starting to rub off on me


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 16, 2010)

Koronikov said:


> >.> Redneck i think hanging out w/ Shark is starting to rub off on me


 
Ah, yeah.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> No, you'd get biscuits kind of like these.
> 
> If you asked for Scones then you'd get Scones.


 Oh yea my bad. If I ask for biscuits I'll get cookies. You get the point though.


----------



## The_Lightning_Fox (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> Oh yea my bad. If I ask for biscuits I'll get cookies. You get the point though.


 
What logical sense does that make at all?!


----------



## Tycho (Oct 16, 2010)

The_Lightning_Fox said:


> What logical sense does that make at all?!


 
They're British, they don't have to make logical sense.  They drive on the wrong side of the road, too, you know.


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> :|
> 
> And fuck your font.


 

LOL @ your panties. They're all in a bunch. :V


----------



## The_Lightning_Fox (Oct 16, 2010)

> They're British, they don't have to make logical sense. They drive on the wrong side of the road, too, you know.



And the drink tea!! I dear say that bloody drink is SO disgusting!


----------



## Tycho (Oct 16, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> LOL @ your panties. They're all in a bunch. :V


 
You would know, I catch you sniffing them constantly.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

The_Lightning_Fox said:


> What logical sense does that make at all?!


 Basically what I'm saying is, the same word can have a different meaning. 

OP uses terrorist, and then almost everyone assumes he's talking about those guys we're fighting, then he gets upset by our assumption. Though most people here would agree that when someone talks about a terrorist, they're talking about some sort of extremist which in this case would be Muslim with a bomb strapped to his chest. OP uses terrorist to refer to the average serial killer, while the majority of us would assume the former. 

Same with biscuits and cookies. If I were to talk about how I just ate a delicious biscuit to my British friends, they might assume I'm talking about a delicious cookie instead. Or they might get that I'm talking about actual American biscuits.


----------



## Minuet (Oct 16, 2010)

I suppose I gave the Republican answer (or perhaps it's the Spike Spiegel answer), but the hilarious part is that if I have a wife in this exercise, I'm obviously not a Republican.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2010)

Lol, gave me a good laugh, I needed that. 

And to the people actually taking this seriously, lighten up, jeez :I


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Lol, gave me a good laugh, I needed that.
> 
> And to the people actually taking this seriously, lighten up, jeez :I


No.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> No.


 
He said, specifically, that it's a joke :I 

It's funny how people on here outright bash conservatives, but whenever someone says something slightly negative about liberals, the whole thread turns into a socialist circle-jerk.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2010)

Seas said:


> What kind of halfassed terrorist is one that uses a knife?
> Shouldn't he have an Ak-47, or a bomb strapped around his chest?
> 
> Anyway, I'd shoot him (*in the leg*) and still wouldn't be a Republican.


 
Good way to get you and your family killed when you miss (and you will)... always shoot center-mass.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Good way to get you and your family killed when you miss (and you will)... always shoot center-mass.


 
Oh no, please, don't turn this into a debate x.x


----------



## slydude851 (Oct 16, 2010)

In this case I'm republican although really in politics, I don't get involved at all.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Good way to get you and your family killed when you miss (and you will)... always shoot center-mass.


 But at least the "terrorist" doesn't die. Everyone wins..I think.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> But at least the "terrorist" doesn't die. Everyone wins..I think.


 
You see, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, Willow. 

Look, if someone is putting you or your family in danger, you really shouldn't be thinking about the criminal's safety, you should be thinking about you and your family's safety first.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Oh no, please, don't turn this into a debate x.x


 
Only way it would turn into a debate is if... oh, wait, people here are already debating the topic.  Sorry!




Willow said:


> But at least the "terrorist" doesn't die. Everyone wins..I think.


 
Everyone wins only when the "terrorist" dies.  Yes, even the "terrorist", since he got what he "wanted" for his efforts.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Only way it would turn into a debate is if... oh, wait, people here are already debating the topic.  Sorry!


 
Naw, it was more along the lines of people whining because they are too weak to take a joke.


----------



## Murphy Z (Oct 16, 2010)

This test also works if you substitute "terrorist" with "biology teacher" ; "screams at you" with "talks about evolution" ; "with a knife" with "with a well documented and researched scientific book" and "charges at you" with "talks rationally with you."

I'm sure you can think of similar substitutions.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> You see, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, Willow.
> 
> Look, if someone is putting you or your family in danger, *you really shouldn't be thinking about the criminal's safety*, you should be thinking about you and your family's safety first.


 
Indeed, I'd never worry about that.  It's all part of the self-defense mindset.




Darkwing said:


> Naw, *it was more along the lines of people whining* because they are too weak to take a joke.


 
Heh... I'd have to agree.




Murphy Z said:


> This test also works *if you substitute "terrorist" with "biology teacher" ; "screams at you" with "talks about evolution" ; "with a knife" with "with a well documented and researched scientific book" and "charges at you" with "talks rationally with you."*
> 
> I'm sure you can think of similar substitutions.


 
Ohhh... really, you need to write this out in the same format as the OP, so we can all share the laugh.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 16, 2010)

We know damn well the difference between a radical and a moderate.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Naw, it was more along the lines of people whining because they are too weak to take a joke.


 A stale joke. It's like laughing your ass off when someone tells a knock knock joke, well, when someone that isn't 5 tells a knock knock joke.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 16, 2010)

*I'm a Democrat*

I normally keep that gun to protect myself from rednecks and Republicans, but...
BANG!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> A stale joke. *It's like laughing your ass off when someone tells a knock knock joke*, well, when someone that isn't 5 tells a knock knock joke.


 
"KNOCK KNOCK"

Who's there?

"I don't know."

I don't know, who?

"Don't ask me, like I said, I have no idea, either."


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> Basically what I'm saying is, the same word can have a different meaning.
> 
> OP uses terrorist, and then almost everyone assumes he's talking about those guys we're fighting, then he gets upset by our assumption. Though most people here would agree that when someone talks about a terrorist, they're talking about some sort of extremist which in this case would be Muslim with a bomb strapped to his chest. OP uses terrorist to refer to the average serial killer, while the majority of us would assume the former.
> 
> Same with biscuits and cookies. If I were to talk about how I just ate a delicious biscuit to my British friends, they might assume I'm talking about a delicious cookie instead. Or they might get that I'm talking about actual American biscuits.


What if the terrorist were a teabagger?


----------



## Seas (Oct 16, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Good way to get you and your family killed when you miss (and you will)... always shoot center-mass.



If I miss, I shoot again.
It's not like I'm holding a bolt-action or something.

Also, I've put it in brackets to give it less of an emphasis. The key word is to shoot, it's only the preference of shooting in the leg (if the situation would get too dangerous for me, I'd of course shoot center-mass).


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

anthroguy101 said:


> What if the terrorist were a teabagger?


 They wouldn't be a terrorist?


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> They wouldn't be a terrorist?


Dictionary.com: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
Whether you're a teabagger or a jihad who wants to kill somebody, it makes no difference.  I know Democrats would have no problem shooting a homicidal teabagger.  Republicans would probably be a bit more reluctant.  The OP never really said anything other than "A terrorist with a huge knife."  That could mean ANYBODY.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 16, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.
> 
> Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges at you...
> 
> You are carrying a Kimber  1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds  before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?



*English Football Hooligan:*

The football hooligan tosses the gun to one side, and charges screaming at the terrorist. He quickly head-buts the startled attacker to the ground, gives him a good kicking with his trusty Doc Marten boots, while his wife and child likewise set upon the terrorist with fists, feet, and Millwall bricks (because guns just take the fun out of giving someone a damn good thrashing). 

As a parting gesture, the football hooligan carves a St George's cross in the terrorist's forehead with the terrorists' own knife, before walking off grumping about "bloody foreigners".

*Australian:*

"You call that a knife?" <pulls out machete> "*This* is a knife!"

*Nepalese Gurkha:*

The Gurkha pulls out his Kukhri knife, and swings one stroke of his knife at the terrorist attacker.

"Ha! Missed!" yells the terrorist, shaking his head - whereupon the terrorist's head falls off.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2010)

Murphy Z said:


> This test also works if you substitute "terrorist" with "biology teacher" ; "screams at you" with "talks about evolution" ; "with a knife" with "with a well documented and researched scientific book" and "charges at you" with "talks rationally with you."
> 
> I'm sure you can think of similar substitutions.



Haha, that would be funny, too. 



Willow said:


> A stale joke. It's like laughing your ass off when someone tells a knock knock joke, well, when someone that isn't 5 tells a knock knock joke.


 
Nobody asked you if it was a stale joke. It's all preference, I find political jokes funny, sue me.


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

anthroguy101 said:


> Dictionary.com: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
> Whether you're a teabagger or a jihad who wants to kill somebody, it makes no difference.  I know Democrats would have no problem shooting a homicidal teabagger.  Republicans would probably be a bit more reluctant.  The OP never really said anything other than "A terrorist with a huge knife."  That could mean ANYBODY.


 Go look up faggot and dyke please and tell me which one of their definitions is the common one. Then tell me which one of those definitions is the real one. 

Just sayin'. Word meanings will always change to fit the times. Not many people are going to refer to a teabagger as a terrorist in _this_ day and age. Most people think of extremists as terrorists.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 16, 2010)

We get it, republicans and rednecks are pretty much murderers.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 16, 2010)

Willow said:


> Go look up faggot and dyke please and tell me which one of their definitions is the common one. Then tell me which one of those definitions is the real one.
> 
> Just sayin'. Word meanings will always change to fit the times. Not many people are going to refer to a teabagger as a terrorist in _this_ day and age. Most people think of extremists as terrorists.


I meant a member of the Tea Party Patriots(r), brought to you by Fox News(tm)


----------



## Willow (Oct 16, 2010)

anthroguy101 said:


> I meant a member of the Tea Party Patriots(r), brought to you by Fox News(tm)


 Then say what you mean.

If someone were a part of the *Tea Party* then it's possible. I don't really know a whole lot about them aside from the fact that they're extremely right winged, nor do I care.

Edit: But yea, thank you for proving the whole word meanings thing.


----------



## The_Lightning_Fox (Oct 16, 2010)

big fat typo. never mind!


----------



## Ratte (Oct 16, 2010)

I heard "Tea Party" and hnnnnngggg'd as hard as I could.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2010)

Seas said:


> If I miss, I shoot again.
> It's not like I'm holding a bolt-action or something.
> 
> Also, I've put it in brackets to give it less of an emphasis. The key word is to shoot, it's only the preference of shooting in the leg (*if the situation would get too dangerous for me, I'd of course shoot center-mass*).


 
Ummm... you have a knife-weilding psycho trying to kill you.  How much more "dangerous" does it need to be?  It would only take him a matter of seconds to burry that knife in your chest, given the scenario.  It's shoot center-mass or die.  If you think you can shoot out his legs, then you've been watching too much TV.  Real-Life doesn't work that way.


----------



## Seas (Oct 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Ummm... you have a knife-weilding psycho trying to kill you.  How much more "dangerous" does it need to be?  It would only take him a matter of seconds to burry that knife in your chest, given the scenario.  It's shoot center-mass or die.  If you think you can shoot out his legs, then you've been watching too much TV.  Real-Life doesn't work that way.



You seem to think that I'd try to shoot his legs until the last moment, which isn't implied by what I said, namely the situation being too dangerous, which in this case obviously means he's too close for me to try to shoot his legs anymore. I didn't think you'd misunderstand what I meant by dangerous situation, given the thread already assumes one, so a "dangerous situation in the dangerous situation" would mean the detail of the scenario (close range).

So, to say it simply, I'd take a few shots at his legs first if he isn't too close yet (a few meters), then proceed with bodyshots in case I didn't incapacitate him yet.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 17, 2010)

what the fuck how did this turn into a serious thread
fucking furries :V


----------



## FriggaFanatic (Oct 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Dude, its just a joke. Its not meant to be taken seriously. Lighten up man.


 
To bad it wasn't funny.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 17, 2010)

FriggaFanatic said:


> To bad it wasn't funny.


 
Not everyone is going to find every joke funny. Some people in here have posted how it made them laugh, so apparently its funny to some people.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Ummm... you have a knife-weilding psycho trying to kill you.  How much more "dangerous" does it need to be?  It would only take him a matter of seconds to burry that knife in your chest, given the scenario.  It's shoot center-mass or die.  If you think you can shoot out his legs, then you've been watching too much TV.  Real-Life doesn't work that way.


 
Also, how feasible is it for a regular person to whip out a gun and do anything worthwhile with it if there's only 2-3 seconds warning? I mean, most people aren't going to be walking around in public with their hands constantly on their gun "just in case", are they?

At least the English soccer hooligan's head-butt takes practically no time to prepare


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Not everyone is going to find every joke funny. Some people in here have posted how it made them laugh, so apparently its funny to some people.


 
Yeah. 

Although I bet if this thread was a joke aimed towards conservatives, everybody would find it funny and wouldn't be so butthurt. 

It's just smug liberals being smug liberals, they seriously can't take a joke :V


----------



## FriggaFanatic (Oct 17, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Although I bet if this thread was a joke aimed towards conservatives, everybody would find it funny and wouldn't be so butthurt.
> 
> It's just smug liberals being smug liberals, they seriously can't take a joke :V


 
It's not offensive, it's just dull. There is no creativity or wit.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 17, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> Also, how feasible is it for a regular person to whip out a gun and do anything worthwhile with it if there's only 2-3 seconds warning? I mean, most people aren't going to be walking around in public with their hands constantly on their gun "just in case", are they?


 
Clearly you have never seen wild west technology. Gun holsters could pivot so you don't have to pull the gun out.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 17, 2010)

FriggaFanatic said:


> It's not offensive, it's just dull. There is no creativity or wit.


 
Then why are you so inclined in pointing out that it's not funny? If you don't like it, just move onto another thread, it's easy, unless you're offended by it.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 17, 2010)

I found this funny, comment wise. Little furfags getting offended over a thread that obviously wasn't going to appeal to them. But what should I expect from a group of people who like gay animal-people porn?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 17, 2010)

Bob Munden has been recognized by the        Guinness Book as: "Fastest Gun" "Quickest Draw" and "The Fastest Man With        A Gun Ever Alive."


Walk and Draw Level Event: Fastest Time Ever Recorded: .15 hundredths of        one second - Arcadia, CA 06/04/1972. Held by Bob Munden

Clearly this is less than 2 or 3 seconds.


----------



## Browder (Oct 17, 2010)

Republican, apparently.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Clearly you have never seen wild west technology. Gun holsters could pivot so you don't have to pull the gun out.


 
This is the 21st century, not "The Wild West".


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 17, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> This is the 21st century, not "The Wild West".


 


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Bob Munden has been  recognized by the        Guinness Book as: "Fastest Gun" "Quickest Draw"  and "The Fastest Man With        A Gun Ever Alive."
> 
> 
> Walk  and Draw Level Event: Fastest Time Ever Recorded: .15 hundredths of         one second - Arcadia, CA 06/04/1972. Held by Bob Munden
> ...



I guess you missed that post or just flat out ignored it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 17, 2010)

Seas said:


> You seem to think that I'd try to shoot his legs until the last moment, which isn't implied by what I said, namely the situation being too dangerous, which in this case obviously means he's too close for me to try to shoot his legs anymore. I didn't think you'd misunderstand what I meant by dangerous situation, given the thread already assumes one, so a "dangerous situation in the dangerous situation" would mean the detail of the scenario (close range).
> 
> So, to say it simply, I'd take a few shots at his legs first if he isn't too close yet (*a few meters*), then proceed with bodyshots in case I didn't incapacitate him yet.


 
I didn't misunderstand.  And you have made it obvious you don't have any tactical knowledge by the very admission you would be taking "a few shots at his legs"  while he's only A FEW METERS away.  As I said, shoot center-mass, or die.  An armed perp can cover "a few meters" in a matter of seconds.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...01/W-Melbourne-police-kill-knife-wielding-man

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6408742.html  ... from this site, in the second comment, we get this:



> *deadly weapon presented by the suspect is already out, you can easily be stabbed by a running suspect in 1.5 seconds from 7 yards*, taser failed to subdue the threat twice. This shooting was justified from the info given in the article. Don't pull a knife on an officer and not expect to get shot in self defense.



So, as I've said three times now, shoot center-mass, or die.  If you want more material, let me know.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *Clearly you have never seen wild west technology.* Gun holsters could pivot so you don't have to pull the gun out.


 
Clearly, you've never seen Bob Munden in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhgbysnYutw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRXXxQ1OuDc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auji_7Z9urA&feature=related




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Bob Munden has been recognized by the        Guinness Book as: "Fastest Gun" "Quickest Draw" and "The Fastest Man With        A Gun Ever Alive."
> 
> 
> Walk and Draw Level Event: Fastest Time Ever Recorded: .15 hundredths of        one second - Arcadia, CA 06/04/1972. Held by Bob Munden
> ...


 
Oh, me bad, then... enjoy the above vids, anyway!  (For those who've never seen Bob in action...)


----------



## Kangamutt (Oct 17, 2010)

Who the fuck in their right mind would be walking their family down an empty, poorly-lit street in the first place?
Answer:


Spoiler



Thomas Wayne


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 17, 2010)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> Who the fuck in their right mind would be walking their family down an empty, poorly-lit street in the first place?



Go walk in the downtown Flint Michigan, or on 8 mile in Detroit.


----------



## GingerM (Oct 17, 2010)

The question presupposes the reader is American, so I'll pick "None of the above."


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 17, 2010)

In this situation the pistol would be chambered for .22 LR, and there would be no wife and kids to get in the way. I'd start at the limbs and take my time . Shoot, berate, shoot, berate, shoot, berate......curbstomp.
Or kill it with its own knife. No mercy for religious fanatics.


----------



## Minuet (Oct 17, 2010)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> Who the fuck in their right mind would be walking their family down an empty, poorly-lit street in the first place?
> Answer:
> 
> 
> ...


 
You'd think someone who was regarded as one of the greatest doctors in the city would be smart enough not to do that.  I'd love to see Bob Kane's reasoning for handing him the idiot ball.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I guess you missed that post or just flat out ignored it.



No, I didn't ignore your post. Quite frankly, you're trying to compare apples with oranges and your comparison is irrelevant to the scenario being discussed because your quote is relating to a *specific competition event*. 
A competition shootout where the shooter is primed and ready to go is NOTHING like the "jumped by a terrorist" situation. It's like saying that a regular person on the street can suddenly run less than a four-minute mile down the road in their neighbourhood because highly-trained Olympic athletes can do it straight out of the blocks on a dedicated running track.

Try again.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 17, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Fail.  You FAIL, OP.
> 
> I'm gonna type up a long response when I finish laughing.
> 
> And "joke" my ass.  You're known for having an anti-liberal bent and you're taking a pretty wimpy potshot.


 
This is the first time I've seen something scathe liberals instead of republicans, so it's a welcome change. Who the hell cares if the OP is actually republican? (hint; it doesn't matter)

I don't consider myself either (I'm completely switched on random sides for issues, so I think I'd lean towards Republican for economic issues and Democrat for social ones), but I found this very funny.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Oct 17, 2010)

Sorry.
I unlike you americans, having all that republican, redneck, democrats shit, I am a person who is in threat every day, and has REAL terrorists here.
In here, they won't come with knives. It's either rocks they will throw on me, or a squad of armed men that will kidnap me.

Here, you have to shoot to survive if you meet one of those.
You can actually miss and hit somebody, four hundreds meters away, that for some reason is up top on a roof watching the terrorists do their jobs.

Man, your terrorists have girly knives. Here, they will use an axe.
They will mutilate you and eat your liver.
Shout "Hail Hamas!" "Hail Hezzbollah!"

Instead of concentrating on our "sins against humanity" , why don't you look for real enemy.

Americans don't have an enemy beside russians. Stop picking your nose where you shouldn't.

If a man runs up on me with a knife, I shoot his leg. I immobillize him, and crush his hand with my foot to disarm the knife, I can't danger myself with him cutting my arm veins.
If three more come, they can say goodbye. They probably already said it.

and that is this toy Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP gun? Just use whatever you got, if you score the head - he is down.


----------



## Seas (Oct 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> I didn't misunderstand.  And you have made it obvious you don't have any tactical knowledge by the very admission you would be taking "a few shots at his legs"  *while he's only A FEW METERS away.*  As I said, shoot center-mass, or die.  An armed perp can cover "a few meters" in a matter of seconds.



And this is where you are wrong.
The OP stated he was turning around the corner, waving his knife, yelling, then starting to charge.
There never was a mention of him being only a few meters away.
In the same time, in your argument, you conventionally ignore the fact that I mentioned, on multiple occasions, that I would take centermass shots If he was already close.


----------



## HotRodLincoln (Oct 17, 2010)

yall are taking that waaay too seriously, I thought it was funny


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 17, 2010)

HotRodLincoln said:


> yall are taking that waaay too seriously, I thought it was funny


 
Thank you. Its a damn joke. Thats all. Everyone in here has their panties wound up so tight their asses are bleeding. Relax.

I also love how people are picking apart the joke to debate that its not even possible to happen. The whole damn point of a joke is the be stupid.
If it doesn't make you laugh, thats fine. Move on.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 17, 2010)

Willow said:


> They wouldn't be a terrorist?


 
They'd be a Halo player.  Badumtsh.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 17, 2010)

I disagree with the OP.

I would have shot the wife and child, then the terrorist, and claimed the terrorist did it, garner international sympathy and a huge fucking pile of insurance money, then retire to the Alps and buy myself a big chalet and some nice skis and bikes.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 17, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> No, I didn't ignore your post. Quite frankly, you're trying to compare apples with oranges and your comparison is irrelevant to the scenario being discussed because your quote is relating to a *specific competition event*.
> A competition shootout where the shooter is primed and ready to go is NOTHING like the "jumped by a terrorist" situation. It's like saying that a regular person on the street can suddenly run less than a four-minute mile down the road in their neighbourhood because highly-trained Olympic athletes can do it straight out of the blocks on a dedicated running track.
> 
> *Try again.*


 
Here you go, just a few... if you want more, just let me know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1evT61Qp_Q  ... Interesting news report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvNS0LdmPfI&playnext=1&videos=4QYV6eyhRMg&feature=mfu_in_order  ...  Part One.

http://www.pointshooting.com/  ...  Handy guide to self-defense and technique.




Seas said:


> And this is where you are wrong.
> The OP stated he was turning around the corner, waving his knife, yelling, then starting to charge.
> There never was a mention of him being only a few meters away.
> In the same time, in your argument, you conventionally ignore the fact that I mentioned, on multiple occasions, that I would take centermass shots If he was already close.


 
I was quoting you, not the OP.  YOU made the claim you would shoot for the legs if the perp was within a few meters... if he was within the distance in which you would die if "just going for the legs".  If the perp is within "a few meters", it's already time for center-mass... and a good helping of luck.


----------



## Seas (Oct 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> I was quoting you, not the OP.  *YOU made the claim you would shoot for the legs if the perp was within a few meters...* if he was within the distance in which you would die if "just going for the legs".  If the perp is within "a few meters", it's already time for center-mass... and a good helping of luck.



Read my comments again, this time more carefully.
I never wrote I'd try to shoot him in the leg if he was too close.


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 18, 2010)

this post is fucktarded and should have been locked and the OP beaten. also, got that it's a joke. doesn't make it funny. at all. also doesn't help that this is obviously copypasted from a forward email, probably from someone with a screename like ftballdude420754 or prays4u21432


----------



## Lobar (Oct 18, 2010)

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children on a hot day.

Suddenly, you see a fourth-generation Mexican-American with a wet t-shirt wrapped around his head to keep him cool walk out of an alley.

You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.


Democrat: Oh how silly of me, that Hispanic person vaguely resembled a militant Islamic extremist for a brief moment.  Boy, carrying this pistol sure could make me susceptible to acting on some very hasty judgments with serious consequences!

Republican: BANG!

Redneck: Fuckin' wÐµtback! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2010)

Seas said:


> Read my comments again, this time more carefully.
> I never wrote I'd try to shoot him in the leg if he was too close.


 
This is your post:



Seas said:


> You seem to think that I'd try to shoot his legs until the last moment, which isn't implied by what I said, namely the situation being too dangerous, which in this case obviously means he's too close for me to try to shoot his legs anymore. I didn't think you'd misunderstand what I meant by dangerous situation, given the thread already assumes one, so a "dangerous situation in the dangerous situation" would mean the detail of the scenario (close range).
> 
> *So, to say it simply, I'd take a few shots at his legs first if he isn't too close yet (a few meters), then proceed with bodyshots in case I didn't incapacitate him yet.*


 
In the bolded passage, you state quite clearly that you would "take a few shots at his legs first if he isn't too close yet (a few meters)..."

Now, yes, after reading it again more closely, you may very well be saying that too close is within "a few meters."  But it could also be read to indicate you wouldn't start shooting center-mass until he was within "a few meters".  See, problem is, either way, you don't have time if you wait till the perp is "too close".  Those very words "too close" indicate that you've messed up, and have only seconds to live.  You have to shoot center-mass as soon as the threat becomes evident, not go on the mistaken, Hollywood-created belief that you can shoot for the legs... and survive.  You may be very lucky, and succeed... only to be sued by the perp you've just shot the legs out from under.  Or, more likely, you'll be lying on a cold slab of stainless steel in the county morgue.  You and your family.  Always.  Shoot.  For.  Center.  Mass.

Here's a forum discussion on the subject:

http://goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?5657-Self-Defense-Always-shoot-to-kill-or-no

Here's a counter opinion to center-mass:

http://forums.gunsamerica.com/yaf_postsm423_The-Center-Mass-Myth-and-Ending-a-Gunfight.aspx

And here's a "pro" view:

http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/127235 ... Part 1


----------



## Lobar (Oct 18, 2010)

also the OP doesn't know how many rounds a Kimber 1911 chambered in .45 ACP carries :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2010)

Lobar said:


> also the OP doesn't know how many rounds a Kimber 1911 chambered in .45 ACP carries :V


 
That depends... 1911 mags (in .45 ACP) come in both seven, eight and ten round capacities (the ten-rounders sticking out below the grip).


----------



## Lobar (Oct 18, 2010)

quote != edit

fuck


----------



## Lobar (Oct 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> That depends... 1911 mags (in .45 ACP) come in both seven, eight and ten round capacities (the ten-rounders sticking out below the grip).


 
The redneck in the OP seems to have a twelve round mag.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2010)

Lobar said:


> The redneck in the OP seems to have a twelve round mag.


 
If I remember right, though, he was on his second mag.


----------



## TrickyDick (Oct 18, 2010)

I am none of the above. I, however, am NOT A CROOK.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 18, 2010)

TrickyDick said:


> I am none of the above. I, however, am NOT A CROOK.


 
I'm imagining Nixon's jowls flapping angrily as he says "I AM NOT A CROOK".

I'm telling you, the man looks like a caricature even in PHOTOGRAPHS.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 18, 2010)

You're in the know and you know that mountain lions are roaming deserted streets. You've broken off from the neighborhood watch, so you're all alone. You're running around a corner carrying a huge knife trying to find your group when you see mountain lion behind a family. The mountain lion appears to be stalking the family, crouching low, getting ready for the pounce. You know from your wilderness training and your long experience with mountain lions that the large cat is ready to pounce for the smallest child and it will take the mountain lion mere seconds to do so. You lock eyes with the alpha parent attempt to warn the family but you're out of breath and excited so your words sound like obscenities or like you've just screamed "Allahu Ackbar" or "Die Government pigs." The cat is not scared off and the alpha parent looks at you funny. You, being a super fast sprinter, know that you can catch the cat in less in mere seconds from a dead sprint so you raise the knife, hope for the best, and take off.

Did a republican, democrat or redneck just kill you?


----------



## Tycho (Oct 18, 2010)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> You're in the know and you know that mountain lions are roaming deserted streets. You've broken off from the neighborhood watch, so you're all alone. You're running around a corner carrying a huge knife trying to find your group when you see mountain lion behind a family. The mountain lion appears to be stalking the family, crouching low, getting ready for the pounce. You know from your wilderness training and your long experience with mountain lions that the large cat is ready to pounce for the smallest child and it will take the mountain lion mere seconds to do so. You lock eyes with the alpha parent attempt to warn the family but you're out of breath and excited so your words sound like obscenities or like you've just screamed "Allahu Ackbar" or "Die Government pigs." The cat is not scared off and the alpha parent looks at you funny. You, being a super fast sprinter, know that you can catch the cat in less in mere seconds from a dead sprint so you raise the knife, hope for the best, and take off.
> 
> Did a republican, democrat or redneck just kill you?


 
Why would I try to save them from the mountain lion at all? >:3


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 18, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Why would I try to save them from the mountain lion at all? >:3


 
Instinct has taken over and nature has defined this family as being valuable to you. You cannot resist, much less think about resisting, the urge to be the hero and confront the cat.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 18, 2010)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Instinct has taken over and nature has defined this family as being valuable to you. You cannot resist, much less think about resisting, the urge to be the hero and confront the cat.


 
I will have the dying gratification of knowing that Kimber and family are mountain lion food as I lay bleeding.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 18, 2010)

Don't forget to search the corpse for a wallet with some kind of ID. A driver's license is preferred, as it will provide a home address. Chances are there will be more scum there. The problem is that an 8-shot pistol is probably insufficient for that kind of engagement. Maybe molotovs?


----------



## Seas (Oct 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> This is your post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In he end, If I shoot him center-mass within a few meters, he IS going down isn't he?
That's what I've been saying. I only shoot at the legs outside of that range.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 18, 2010)

Lobar said:


> You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children on a hot day.
> 
> Suddenly, you see a fourth-generation Mexican-American with a wet t-shirt wrapped around his head to keep him cool walk out of an alley.
> 
> ...


 
Lol.

For most Republicans shooting Mexicans is a family activity. I advocate it because board game nights are fucking retarded :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2010)

Seas said:


> In he end, If I shoot him center-mass within a few meters, *he IS going down isn't he?*
> That's what I've been saying. I only shoot at the legs outside of that range.


 
Sounds like you didn't read my links... or did you?  If you did, you missed all the info on that topic (in the second link).


----------



## jeff (Oct 18, 2010)

am i on good terms with the terrorist because there might be a redneck behind me


----------



## Lobar (Oct 19, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> If I remember right, though, he was on his second mag.


 
You know you can actually go back to page 1 and check right?



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Redneck's Answer: [/FONT]
> 
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
> BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!
> ...




12 rounds in his first mag, 9 in his second (even weirder).

Also an "expert shot" would know how many rounds he's got too and not dry-fire when he's out...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 19, 2010)

Lobar said:


> You know you can actually go back to page 1 and check right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Its a damn joke. Why are you picking it apart?


----------



## Ames (Oct 19, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its a damn joke. Why are you picking it apart?


 
Because it's fun to push your buttons.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 19, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its a damn joke. Why are you picking it apart?


 
I'm just amused that the author chastises liberals as people that wouldn't even know what a 1911 is and then can't get his details right.

Part of me kinda wishes the Teabaggers would walk their talk about armed rebellion and fucking try it already.  There's too many know-nothing wannabe Rambos like the author of this email in their ranks to accomplish anything.  They'll just be easy targets that have conveniently stockpiled loads of weapons on their own dime for the liberal resistance to loot.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 19, 2010)

Lobar said:


> You know you can actually go back to page 1 and check right?



Yes, but I didn't... and he still changed mags.




Lobar said:


> 12 rounds in his first mag, 9 in his second (even weirder).
> 
> *Also an "expert shot" would know how many rounds he's got too and not dry-fire when he's out...*


 
That's not the problem... the problem is, most semi-auto pistols (except for some small pocket pistols and .22 rimfires) lock back the slide on the last round, so there shouldn't have been any "click" at all.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 19, 2010)

Shartblaster said:


> am i on good terms with the terrorist because there might be a redneck behind me


Owned.

Good thought where there was none.


----------



## Seas (Oct 19, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Sounds like you didn't read my links... or did you?  If you did, you missed all the info on that topic (in the second link).


 
Read it now, but still doesn't change much.

It states it takes 2-3 shots from a .45 for the instant collapse of the target.
Firing off 2-3 shots on an attacker within a few meters (lets-say, 5-6) shouldn't be a problem, sonsidering it'd still take him more than a whole second to get to the shooter. Refer to the firing speed of the demonstration video, with the added benefit of the finger already being on the trigger and ready for fast-firing (after the assumed all-misses on the leg shots).


----------



## Bambi (Oct 19, 2010)

Seas said:


> Read it now, but still doesn't change much.
> 
> It states it takes 2-3 shots from a .45 for the instant collapse of the target.
> Firing off 2-3 shots on an attacker within a few meters (lets-say, 5-6) shouldn't be a problem, sonsidering it'd still take him more than a whole second to get to the shooter. Refer to the firing speed of the demonstration video, with the added benefit of the finger already being on the trigger and ready for fast-firing (after the assumed all-misses on the leg shots).


I love the conjecture concerning firearms.

First of all, a .45 shot cannot stop a running target unless the shot fatally engages the targets nervous system, brain stem, brain itself, heart, or any bone in the legs; this includes shrapnel from a bullet. I've seen videos of mobsters in Latin America shooting up jewelry stores with AK47's, and the only time someone ever fell from one of those rounds (as I saw) was again, if the shot was fatal, or crippled/paralyzed the individual, resulting in their collapse. Again, if you're dealing with someone whose within a certain proximity, means you harm, has a weapon, and you go to shoot him/her, remember that non-fatal but disabling shots are preferred, and can have a much greater affect than those which are unloaded center mass.

Also? Rule of law states that if someone means you clear and direct harm, that harm must be evident. If it's not, say goodbye to your freedoms (foul play laws.)


----------



## coward67 (Oct 19, 2010)

Getting that it is a joke, I still need to add that republican's are stupid because they hate gays, foreigners, blacks, whites, browns, aliens, animals, humans, themselves, osama bin laden and america, they also like drugs.


----------



## Seas (Oct 19, 2010)

Bambi said:


> I love the conjecture concerning firearms.
> 
> First of all, a .45 shot cannot stop a running target unless the shot fatally engages the targets nervous system, brain stem, brain itself, heart, or any bone in the legs; this includes shrapnel from a bullet. I've seen videos of mobsters in Latin America shooting up jewelry stores with AK47's, and the only time someone ever fell from one of those rounds (as I saw) was again, if the shot was fatal, or crippled/paralyzed the individual, resulting in their collapse. Again, *if you're dealing with someone whose within a certain proximity, means you harm, has a weapon, and you go to shoot him/her, remember that non-fatal but disabling shots are preferred*, and can have a much greater affect than those which are unloaded center mass.
> 
> Also? Rule of law states that if someone means you clear and direct harm, that harm must be evident. If it's not, say goodbye to your freedoms (foul play laws.)


 
Yes, that is what my preference would be and that is why I wrote that I'd try to shoot his leg first, what I wrote in the last comment is after the asumption on Roose's part that the leg shots would miss and the attacker was already within a few meters range. 
And remember, i'm writing about multiple .45 shots, not just one, and they will hit multiple areas on the body, not unlikely hitting some of the mentioned organs.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 19, 2010)

Seas said:


> Yes, that is what my preference would be and that is why I wrote that I'd try to shoot his leg first, what I wrote in the last comment is after the asumption on Roose's part that the leg shots would miss and the attacker was already within a few meters range.
> And remember, i'm writing about multiple .45 shots, not just one, and they will hit multiple areas on the body, not unlikely hitting some of the mentioned organs.


Hitting organs doesn't knock people over; US Marines in Iraq have reported shooting enemy combatants multiple times during the course of their engagements and to no avail, do the current rounds in their capacity "stop" their targets from shooting, or fleeing; according to their statements, it's more than possible to survive the trauma of being shot multiple times. This is correlated with the evidence that organs being shot will not stop a target; it might cause pain, but it won't say, knock him over. As it concerns the issue of pain, the bodies response to dealing with trauma is sometimes an elevated heart-rate and adrenaline output, thereby negating most of the ideas that magical round syndrome fixes your problems with a potential perpetrator.

Again, if the issue is, "shots miss, tid-for-tad, this round vs. that round" there needs to be more debunking going on. Also? People need to stop with the foul play porn. Not saying you're responsible, but the whole role-playing aspect of, "What if a robber/godzilla/martha stewart assaulted you, you had a gun, x,y,z, what would you do?" is just a blatant cover for thrill snuff that's thinly veiled and justified by, "OH NOES! DANGER!"


----------



## Seas (Oct 19, 2010)

Bambi said:


> Hitting organs doesn't knock people over; US Marines in Iraq have reported shooting enemy combatants multiple times during the course of their engagements and to no avail, do the current rounds in their capacity "stop" their targets from shooting, or fleeing; according to their statements, it's more than possible to survive the trauma of being shot multiple times. This is correlated with the evidence that organs being shot will not stop a target; it might cause pain, but it won't say, knock him over. As it concerns the issue of pain, the bodies response to dealing with trauma is sometimes an elevated heart-rate and adrenaline, thereby negating most of the ideas that magical round syndrome fixes your problems with a potential perpetrator.



I am aware of that. And that is why I wrote that it is not unlikely that one or more of the shots could hit the organs you mentioned (brain, upper part of the spinal cord, heart), which would instantly incapacitate the target.




Bambi said:


> Again, if the issue is, "shots miss, tid-for-tad, this round vs. that round" there needs to be more debunking going on. Also? People need to stop with the foul play porn. Not saying you're responsible, but the whole role-playing aspect of, "What if a robber/godzilla/martha stewart assaulted you, you had a gun, x,y,z, what would you do?" is just a blatant cover for thrill snuff that's thinly veiled and justified by, "OH NOES! DANGER!"



This originally started off with Roose assuming that leg shots aren't viable to consider, and I went along with the asumption the leg shots would actually miss and then came the part about stopping an attacker at close range quickly with multiple shots, all is to say that shooting at the legs can be a viable option as even if they miss, the attacker can be stopped at closer range.

But then again, the whole thing started off from commenting about a detail of my post which wasn't even it's point.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 19, 2010)

Seas said:


> Read it now, but still doesn't change much.
> 
> It states it takes 2-3 shots from a .45 for the instant collapse of the target.
> Firing off 2-3 shots on an attacker within a few meters (lets-say, 5-6) shouldn't be a problem, sonsidering it'd still take him more than a whole second to get to the shooter. Refer to the firing speed of the demonstration video, with the added benefit of the finger already being on the trigger and ready for fast-firing (after the assumed all-misses on the leg shots).


 
I see you still don't get it... and I really need to go to bed, so I'll have to work on this later.




Seas said:


> .But then again, the whole thing started off from commenting about a detail of my post which wasn't even it's point.


 
However, it was a point that would only get you killed... which was my point.  But then, this is a highly unlikely "what if" scenario.  Oh, and you did know that shooting the legs out from under someone won't keep them from attacking you, especially if they have a gun?... even with a knife, as in this scenario, by the time you've switched to the vitals, or been lucky enough to hit you mark leg-wise, he's close enough to stab you when he stumbles and falls... if he even falls.

Really, you need to study up on proper self-defense techniques.  It can't hurt.  So... to bed I go.........


----------



## Bambi (Oct 19, 2010)

Seas said:


> This originally started off with Roose assuming that leg shots aren't viable to consider, and I went along with the asumption the leg shots would actually miss and then came the part about stopping an attacker at close range quickly with multiple shots, all is to say that shooting at the legs can be a viable option as even if they miss, the attacker can be stopped at closer range.
> 
> But then again, the whole thing started off from commenting about a detail of my post which wasn't even it's point.


I'm not sure I understand the idea that you're more likely to miss under a certain amount of meters; doesn't make sense. I'd also recommend for the gun junkies of the forum to learn a good defensive martial art, but yeah, seeing this exchange helps put it into context.





Roose Hurro said:


> However, it was a point that would only  get you killed... which was my point.  But then, this is a highly  unlikely "what if" scenario.  Oh, and you did know that shooting the  legs out from under someone won't keep them from attacking you,  especially if they have a gun?... even with a knife, as in this  scenario, by the time you've switched to the vitals, or been lucky  enough to hit you mark leg-wise, he's close enough to stab you when he  stumbles and falls... if he even falls.


Disagree.

When being attacked by someone who has a knife, distance is your best friend, and you get that distance by keeping eyes on your assailant and backing away, running if you have to, or throwing things in the way of your assailants path if he/she's approaching you. 

Same principle applies when you have the means to defend yourself, which also means that you're less likely to miss your target if you're putting a greater distance between them and you. Shooting isn't ideal, *escape is.* Also? A shot to the bones in the leg will cause more shock to your assailant than say, hitting him in the meat of his shoulder; and the idea that a shot to legs won't stop them reads to me, and I hate to say, as something I also disagree with. 

IMHO, if you're capable of hitting someone center mass under three meters, you're capable of hitting them in their knee caps in under two. Disabling shots are favored; near lethal shots can make you more culpable than the criminal, so it's always wise to use good discretion.


----------



## Seas (Oct 19, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> However, it was a point that would only get you killed... which was my point.  But then, this is a highly unlikely "what if" scenario.  Oh, and you did know that shooting the legs out from under someone won't keep them from attacking you, especially if they have a gun?... even with a knife, as in this scenario, by the time you've switched to the vitals, or been lucky enough to hit you mark leg-wise, he's close enough to stab you when he stumbles and falls... if he even falls.



If someone is already falling before the shooter and still trying to take a stab at him, it is instnictual reflex to quickly step out it's way. 
(After that, the one with the knife doesn't pose a threat anymore. If he tries to crawl, the shooter can just keep his distance.)

And by the way, this is exclusively about an attacker with a meelee weapon, I would of course handle a gunfight entirely differently.



Roose Hurro said:


> Really, you need to study up on proper self-defense techniques.


This isn't about my general knowledge of self-defense. It's about preferring to incapacitate a knife-armed attacker without killing him if possible.
I could just very well shoot him dead if I wanted as soon as seeing him charge, the primary reason for my choice is the consideration of consequences and the pronciple of not using deadly force if other method of solving the situation is avaiable.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 19, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I'm just amused that the author chastises liberals as people that wouldn't even know what a 1911 is and then can't get his details right.
> 
> Part of me kinda wishes the Teabaggers would walk their talk about armed rebellion and fucking try it already. There's too many know-nothing wannabe Rambos like the author of this email in their ranks to accomplish anything. They'll just be easy targets that have conveniently stockpiled loads of weapons on their own dime for the liberal resistance to loot.



Better yet. Give them their own country. Then invade and destroy them.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 19, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Better yet. Give them their own country. Then invade and destroy them.


 
I somehow think that you wouldn't need the second part, as they'd probably self-destruct Somalia-style on their own


----------



## Tycho (Oct 19, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> I somehow think that you wouldn't need the second part, as they'd probably self-destruct Somalia-style on their own



All the while they'd be screaming "WHY IS OUR COUNTRY FALLING APART?!" and "I DON'T KNOW BUT I BET IT'S THOSE DAMN FOREIGNERS AND LIBERALS"

And then we'd catch some of them illegally immigrating to the United States of Somewhat-Less-Stupid-Now America.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 19, 2010)

REAL SMALL GOVERNMENT STATES OF AMERICA SHALL NEVER FALL TO THE LIKES OF BIG GOVERNMENT TAX AND SPEND AMERICA.
8.75 SALES TAX 4 LIFE.
Now if only we had a way to pay for our military other than $9 Billion dollar bills and gold flakes from Pastor in Chief Beck's Gold Reserve.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 19, 2010)

Tycho said:


> All the while they'd be screaming "WHY IS OUR COUNTRY FALLING APART?!" and "I DON'T KNOW BUT I BET IT'S THOSE DAMN FOREIGNERS AND LIBERALS"
> 
> And then we'd catch some of them illegally immigrating to the United States of Somewhat-Less-Stupid-Now America.


SEND EM BYACK!!!11 /spits in can


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 19, 2010)

Bambi said:


> Disagree.
> 
> When being attacked by someone who has a knife, distance is your best friend, and you get that distance by keeping eyes on your assailant and backing away, running if you have to, or throwing things in the way of your assailants path if he/she's approaching you.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, but Seas said nothing about "putting greater distance" between him/his family and the perp, simply about shooting for the legs until the perp was within "a few meters"... and, like I said, that's too close.

And then, there is all this, just for a start:

http://radioviceonline.com/new-york-legislators-suggest-police-shoot-criminals-in-arms-or-legs-only/

http://corneredcat.com/Legal/myths.aspx

http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/wheredoyouaim.shtml

Of course, if possible, escape is the best option.  But that is not always the option.  As I believe you already know.




Seas said:


> If someone is already falling before the shooter and still trying to take a stab at him, it is instnictual reflex to quickly step out it's way.
> (After that, the one with the knife doesn't pose a threat anymore. If he tries to crawl, the shooter can just keep his distance.)
> 
> *And by the way, this is exclusively about an attacker with a meelee weapon*, I would of course handle a gunfight entirely differently.



Point taken.




Seas said:


> This isn't about my general knowledge of self-defense. *It's about preferring to incapacitate a knife-armed attacker without killing him if possible.*
> I could just very well shoot him dead if I wanted as soon as seeing him charge, the primary reason for my choice is the consideration of consequences and the pronciple of not using deadly force if other method of solving the situation is avaiable.


 
Please read the material in the links, above.


----------



## Seas (Oct 20, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yes, but Seas said nothing about "putting greater distance" between him/his family and the perp, simply about shooting for the legs until the perp was within "a few meters"... and, like I said, that's too close.



The reason of not actively putting more distance between us and the attacker is that, unless the hypothetical wife and kids are somehow not shocked when faced with a scenario like this, they would either stand still or otherwise basically guaranteed to react and move slower away from the attacker than I can (we're speaking about small children after all). 
And because I can't let the guy get to them first instead of me, the best I can hope for is to tell them to "stand back" as soon as I see the attacker coming to keep them away. Otherwise, facing him alone, backpedaling and keeping distance from him would be optimal.



Roose Hurro said:


> http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/wheredoyouaim.shtml





> If someone is moving toward you with a contact weapon such as a knife, a baseball bat, or a crowbar, shots that break the pelvis will down him faster than a shot through the heart. Why?
> 
> Because with a broken pelvis he cannot take even one step; the support structure of the entire body is broken, and he will go down, probably before he can reach you.



This one is interesting to consider, it'd have the same effect as a leg shot, although it needs to actually break the bone and not just tear a muscle tissue like with a leg shot.
Maybe aiming at the base of the leg would be the best option if going for immobilization then, because it has a good chance of hitting either the pelvis or leg.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 20, 2010)

Seas said:


> The reason of not actively putting more distance between us and the attacker is that, *unless the hypothetical wife and kids are somehow not shocked when faced with a scenario like this, they would either stand still or otherwise basically guaranteed to react and move slower away from the attacker than I can* (we're speaking about small children after all).
> And because I can't let the guy get to them first instead of me, the best I can hope for is to tell them to "stand back" as soon as I see the attacker coming to keep them away. Otherwise, facing him alone, backpedaling and keeping distance from him would be optimal.



Oh, yeah.  _*slaps forehead*_  Heh... didn't think of that.




Seas said:


> *This one is interesting to consider*, it'd have the same effect as a leg shot, although it needs to actually break the bone and not just tear a muscle tissue like with a leg shot.
> Maybe aiming at the base of the leg would be the best option if going for immobilization then, because it has a good chance of hitting either the pelvis or leg.


 
Yes, it is.  There are many views on the subject of self-defense out there, and far as I know, none of them are perfect.  So, best to explore the subject, and learn... then keep your fingers crossed, for luck.  And practice, practice, practice.  As best as you can.  Lots of places out there willing to teach you, as well.

Heh... "Knowledge makes the best ammo."


----------



## Telnac (Oct 21, 2010)

*LOL*  BANG


----------



## CelestiusNexus (Oct 21, 2010)

Well, then, I guess I really am I seasoned Redneck.  I was born in Redneck town, and I've lived with them for half of my life.  But I look so un-redneckish.


----------



## NA3LKER (Oct 21, 2010)

democrat


----------



## Slasher ThornTear (Oct 23, 2010)

I'd have to say I'm on the fence when it comes to politics.  I tend to always end up somewhere in the middle....conservative on some issues, liberal on others.

For example, I'm a huge gun nut, support the death penalty, and increased military spending.  But on the flip side, I tend to agree with democratic economic policy, legalizing weed, support gay rights, and universal health care.  So basically I don't get along with either party.

Though my current opinion is this:  I don't trust the Democrats to get anything done, and I plain don't trust the Republicans.

Oh Eff Em Gee


----------



## Inya (Oct 23, 2010)

I'd be dum rednecks, out here wit mah shotgun and 12 pack o' dum good stuf'

No, but really, I guess I'm a democrat.


----------



## GatodeCafe (Oct 23, 2010)

Luckily, where I live, we don't have to deal with fucking terrorists running down the street screaming.

I'm pretty sure I'm a dem, tho, because I sent in my ballot yesterday and I'm pretty sure it was all Ds. I love the hell out of guns, though. So I'm a dem/redneck, yeah?


----------



## Mulefa Zalif (Oct 23, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?


I'm German, so I guess that makes me a Nazi.
Zeke Hyle!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 23, 2010)

GatodeCafe said:


> Luckily, where I live, we don't have to deal with fucking terrorists running down the street screaming.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm a dem, tho, because I sent in my ballot yesterday and I'm pretty sure it was all Ds. *I love the hell out of guns, though.* So I'm a dem/redneck, yeah?


 
Too bad you're all the way out in Colorado Springs... we could go to the range for a day, and share our guns.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 23, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Too bad you're all the way out in Colorado Springs... we could go to the range for a day, and share our guns.


Is it sad that on occasion, a twenty gauge still hurts my shoulder when firing at targets?

I mean, I'm accurate, but DYAMN.

@Topic: America doesn't need to be partitioned into unrealistic, political extremes of labels and social/voting behavior.


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Oct 23, 2010)

*Sigh*

Another example of how, no matter how attractive liberal beliefs are, it is conservatism where most common sense is found.

I enjoy a visit to crooks and liars as much as the next guy, but whenever I go over to Conservapedia, World Net Daily or Movieguide and see the examples of bias and Liberal hissy-fits they expose I'm overwhelmed with sympathy for their cause and feel a strong moral obligation to adopt their beliefs.

I already oppose the legalization of drugs, support outlawing elective abortion and believe homeschooling yields better results than public schooling. 

I believe the only thing that keeps me from swinging completely to the right is the possibility that I'm gay or bi, if it turns out I'm straight the collective forces of conservatism would have gained another loyal foot soldier.

It's sad when your heart tells you one thing and your head tells you another, you want to follow your heart but you feel you have to follow your head. 

BTW, I would have done the republican thing.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 23, 2010)

*Sigh*

Another example of how, no matter how attractive conservative beliefs are, it is liberalism where most common sense is found.

I enjoy a visit to crooks and liars as much as the next guy, but whenever I go over to Daily Kos, Huffington Post or Slate and see the examples of bias and conservative hissy-fits they expose I'm overwhelmed with sympathy for their cause and feel a strong moral obligation to adopt their beliefs.

I already support the legalization of drugs, support limited elective abortion and believe that global warming is heavily influenced by mankind. 

I believe the only thing that keeps me from swinging completely to the left is the possibility that I'm straight or Christian, if it turns out I'm gay or bi the collective forces of liberalism would have gained another loyal foot soldier.

It's sad when your heart tells you one thing and your head tells you another, you want to follow your heart but you feel you have to follow your head. 



Shit posting.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 23, 2010)

Bambi said:


> Is it sad that on occasion, a twenty gauge still hurts my shoulder when firing at targets?
> 
> I mean, I'm accurate, but DYAMN.


 
hee hee hee


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> Another example of how, no matter how attractive liberal beliefs are, it is conservatism where most common sense is found.
> 
> ...


 Wow, you're a moron.


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Oct 23, 2010)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> Another example of how, no matter how attractive conservative beliefs are, it is liberalism where most common sense is found.
> 
> ...


 
Have You ever been to Conservapedia? 

On the right side of their main page they have a list of all the dispicable things the left does to silence opposition, I try to avoid reading it because it's so depressing. Read through the whole thing and tell me if your still sure about being on the good side. 

So some Right Wing pundit makes some outrageously stupid comment and it gets reported on Daily Kos. It's better than Suing a girl for looking for a Christian roomate, or firing a father whose just showing how proud he is of his son. 

The list is on the Right: Go on, Read it.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 23, 2010)

Conservapedia, LOL. That's a good one.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> Have You ever been to Conservapedia?
> 
> On the right side of their main page they have a list of all the dispicable things the left does to silence opposition, I try to avoid reading it because it's so depressing. Read through the whole thing and tell me if your still sure about being on the good side.
> 
> ...


I've been to Conservapedia. There's so much biased shit on there it's a wonder why people take it seriously.
I mean, really. Conservatives are pushing for a Bible remake to fit their views. What the shit?


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Oct 23, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I've been to Conservapedia. There's so much biased shit on there it's a wonder why people take it seriously.
> *I mean, really. Conservatives are pushing for a Bible remake to fit their views. What the shit?*



Where'd you get that?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> Where'd you get that?


 your precious Conservapedia


----------



## Tycho (Oct 23, 2010)

he doesn't even READ the site, oh jeez, this gets better and better.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2010)

> *Gay youths are committing suicide at an alarming rate.* This has prompted Obama to record a video saying "It [the gay lifestyle] gets better." [11] The typical liberals make excuses such as school bullying. The Huffington Post blames the negative messages from religious institutions. [12] Tony Perkins stands up for righteousness, "We would do no one a favor if we ceased to proclaim that truth." That truth is that homosexuality  doesn't get better, the risk of serious health problems is unnatural, a  shortened lifespan and death from the gay lifestyle is real.


Oh yeah, this is completely truthful and unbiased at all :V


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 23, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> Have You ever been to Conservapedia?



Yes, it's bullshit and a cesspool of articles that have only been half told, set up with a tagline that prepares the reader for what they ought to think.

Article: "Child brings gun to school."

Headline on conservapedia: "Lamestream media plays up child bringing gun to school to get more gun control."



> On the right side of their main page they have a list of all the dispicable things the left does to silence opposition, I try to avoid reading it because it's so depressing. Read through the whole thing and tell me if your still sure about being on the good side.


That and a thousand other opinion blogs I've been to list the same bullshit. Not quite as conveniently. But if I wanted to hate cops, I could just browse gawker. Do I hate the capitalism? I could just browse the international workers of the world website. Do I hate commercial farming? There a quite a few blogs out there ready to cater to my needs. I'm not impressed. Of course, your conservative persecution complex leads you to take everything you've read at face value to reinforce opinion of the world and everything around you. Speaking of which, your articles:


> So some Right Wing pundit makes some outrageously stupid comment and it gets reported on Daily Kos. It's better than Suing a girl for looking for a Christian roomate, or firing a father whose just showing how proud he is of his son.



So ready to write off the Daily Kos are you? But you're more than ready and willing to accept the story and the prompting tagline as you see it on conservapedia. Fair enough. I can do that too. Here's a comment from that article you linked about the man fired from his job:

"This person was interviewed by Shawn hannity. He admitted that stage hands are required to wear uniforms. It's in their job description. It'a semi formal attire for setting stages up for dignitaries. This story is a sham. The right needs to be more vigilant when it comes to factual reporting. This person was let go because he was out of uniform. Not because he wore a Bush t shirt."

This is a true statement and depicts how ready conservatives are to peddle yourselves and overall stupid behavior as victims of the lamestream media and the shadowy vast left wing conspiracy. HAHAHAH WOW! See how I did that?



> The list is on the Right: Go on, Read it.


 
I've had my fill of reading bullshit day in and day out. To get prepped by a tagline on a site, only to open the fucking article and not only find that the facts aren't all there but that the updates and situation aren't measuring up to what I was prompted to look for. There's no more substance to that site than there is to Liberapedia. You should read that and enliten yourself. The list is on the right. Go on, Read it.


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Oct 23, 2010)

I see what your talking about.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, undoing the liberal edits made in the NIV.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> I see what your talking about.
> 
> Seems perfectly reasonable to me, undoing the liberal edits made in the NIV.


 THIS JUST IN.
THE BIBLE ISN'T CONSERVATIVE.
Good Lord.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 23, 2010)

Tycho said:


> hee hee hee


Eheheheh, shutup Beavis!


----------



## Tycho (Oct 23, 2010)

Bambi said:


> Eheheheh, shutup Beavis!


 
Funniest thing is, I've never had a problem with a 12-gauge, but firing a 10-gauge felt like it was gonna take my arm out of its socket.  You wouldn't THINK there'd be that much of a difference.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 23, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Funniest thing is, I've never had a problem with a 12-gauge, but firing a 10-gauge felt like it was gonna take my arm out of its socket.  You wouldn't THINK there'd be that much of a difference.


Well, my problem is/was I'd release my shoulder, which would cause the butt of the shotgun to kick back right after it discharged. Plus, I'd much rather have a rubber plate installed on the back of shotgun butt so it doesn't slide after discharge, but that's something to work on eventually (soft, cotton shirts=no friction, no resistance to the recoil of a shotgun blast.)

I'm a fuck of a shot with it though, it's just I've got to change this ONE firing habit of mine.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 23, 2010)

Bambi said:


> *Is it sad that on occasion, a twenty gauge still hurts my shoulder when firing at targets?*
> 
> I mean, I'm accurate, but DYAMN.
> 
> @Topic: America doesn't need to be partitioned into unrealistic, political extremes of labels and social/voting behavior.


 
Not really.  I've always had "boney" shoulders ("wishbone"), so I have to be careful where I place the buttpad on any rifle/shotgun that isn't a .22 rimfire.  Sounds to me like you could use one of those PAST Recoil Pads:  http://www.battenfeldtechnologies.com/past/catalog.asp?family=past-recoil-pads ... I have one, and it really works.  Though I much prefer a 20-gauge to an 8mm Mauser, even so.

And yes, I really wish America wasn't so divided... really wish the Whole World would stop acting like a houseful of spoiled children.




Tycho said:


> Funniest thing is, I've never had a problem with a 12-gauge, but firing a 10-gauge felt like it was gonna take my arm out of its socket.  *You wouldn't THINK there'd be that much of a difference.*


 
Perhaps, but a 10-gauge is another step up, and may exceed your recoil tolerance:  http://www.chuckhawks.com/shotgun_recoil_table.htm ... Notice the recoil energy of a 12-gauge can be as low as 17.3, while a 10-gauge puts out 62.9, quite a difference.


----------



## moonchylde (Oct 23, 2010)

Completely disregarding the last seven pages of pointless debate over what is, essentially, a rather hilarious joke, I guess I'm a redneck. If I'm armed, an expert shot, and ANYONE terrorist or otherwise attacks my family, I'm going to turn them into swiss cheese.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 23, 2010)

moonchylde said:


> If I'm armed, an expert shot, and ANYONE terrorist or otherwise attacks my family, I'm going to turn them into swiss cheese.


 
REAL men would turn them into sushi (as in: lots of very thin slices)


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 23, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> REAL men would turn them into sushi (as in: lots of very thin slices)



Britain is filled with REAL men, then, seeing that more people die from stabbings than shootings. 
Even before the near-complete ban on guns with the Firearms Act of 1997.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 24, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> Britain is filled with REAL men, then, seeing that more people die from stabbings than shootings.
> Even before the near-complete ban on guns with the Firearms Act of 1997.


 
English football hooligans vs. French Army. 'Nuff said


----------



## jcfynx (Oct 24, 2010)

I find it racist that this assumes I would be "profiling" the terrorist when it does not tell me what race the terrorist is.

I am also curious as to how I know that a man is a terrorist. As a fellow Asian I take great umbrage to the assumption that all threatening West Asians are terrorists.


----------

