Just to prove gun control nuts are full of shit

[Trader666]

They absolutely can be taken out but not at high altitudes.

Quote from Lucrum:

I wasn't referring to modern fighters either. My now dead ex father in law witnessed a Japanese zero being shot down with an M1 Garand during WWII.

 

[Trader666]

Loser, it's not "macho BS," it's a basic soldiers' skill in the Army. And I never said anything about taking out aircraft at 20,000 -- 30,000 feet with *a* rifle. The fact that you have to make shit up and can't admit when you're wrong makes you an even sorrier POS than before. Must suck to be you

Quote from RedDuke:

Yeah, still laughing at a possibility of shooting something like F-16 or F/A-18 at 20,000-30,000 altitude with a rifle. And instead of saying, oops, I just typed before giving it much thought, he keeps defending it with some macho BS.

 

[Trader666]

And like debating STUpid. You could dip him in red paint and he'd swear it's green

Quote from pspr:

LOL Arguing with the Duke is an exercise in futility. Like futurecurrent his is all knowledgeable (LOL) and incapable of seeing the flaws in his arguments. But, that doesn't stop him from defending his scripture on a constant and never ending basis. One can only hope that he sees the light when reality slaps him upside his face but once again.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Lucrum:

I wasn't referring to modern fighters either. My now dead ex father in law witnessed a Japanese zero being shot down with an M1 Garand during WWII.

So did my late grand father squad during Ww2.

I am sure you were not. I was referring to Bsam comment that came out of trader666 hilarious post.

Not many people are naive to believe modern fighter jets can be brought down by rifle shots. Then he continues to make a fool out of himself by defending his position.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from pspr:

LOL Arguing with the Duke is an exercise in futility. Like futurecurrent his is all knowledgeable (LOL) and incapable of seeing the flaws in his arguments. But, that doesn't stop him from defending his scripture on a constant and never ending basis. One can only hope that he sees the light when reality slaps him upside his face but once again.

I will easily admit when I am wrong. This is a must when trading, for example.

So far no one proved me wrong. I have my beliefs and you have yours. It is normal for both of us to defend our positions. Time will tell who is wrong and who is right.

Please define a reality that is supposed to slap me upside my face.

 

[Trader666]

Then in your world that must make the military naive, dumbass who has never served

Quote from RedDuke:

Not many people are naive to believe modern fighter jets can be brought down by rifle shots.

Quote from RedDuke:

Then he continues to make a fool out of himself by defending his position.

 

[L-Kabong]

Quote from Lucrum:

My point being that a government "ban" does NOT prevent those that really want something from getting their hands on it. Be it semi auto rifles, missiles, drugs, alcohol what ever - you name it.

The Columbine HS shooters violated no less than 20 firearms laws obtaining their weapons. The laws didn't even slow them down.

You're right, if it is otherwise commonly available. But if a ban of semi auo rifles had gone into place about fifty years ago, I don't think there would as many around today as there are. Alcohol and drugs are expendable products. You can't sniff the same gram of cocaine and swig from the same bottle of vodka for 20 years. They need replenishment, so demand is persistent. Plus, I never heard of anyone cracking somebody over the head with an alcoholic beverage, or blowing a cloud of cocaine into someones face to harm them. Durable products are different. That's why if semi auto rifles were to be outlawed, it might take a while to see the results of such legislation.

How much is AR15 today? If it were outlawed what do you think the cost of it would be on the black market? Would you buy an outlawed firearm?

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from Lucrum:

I wasn't referring to modern fighters either. My now dead ex father in law witnessed a Japanese zero being shot down with an M1 Garand during WWII.

Totally believable. Even the late-war variant A6M5a had no self-sealing fuel tanks, no pilot armor and no fire suppression and a lot of the P-38 Jocks said that they just squeezed off a few head-on rounds on the merge and the zero would just explode.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from 377OHMS:

Totally believable. Even the late-war variant A6M5a had no self-sealing fuel tanks, no pilot armor and no fire suppression and a lot of the P-38 Jocks said that they just squeezed off a few head-on rounds on the merge and the zero would just explode.

yeah , I'd say the zero represents the extreme of the maneuverability vs durability tradeoffs of warplanes.

 

[BSAM]

Some people will say anything.
Some people will believe anything.

I like ridiculous people.
I like ridiculous conversations.