Florida State Seminoles

[Jungle Rat]

Hi E!

[sardis]

It was $3.15 last year. Biden celebrating the reduction in gas prices is like a person calling the ambulance for a guy they just shot.

[DooKSucks]

That's about 10-15 minutes from Hedge and Stu...

[Jungle Rat]

It was $3.15 last year. Biden celebrating the reduction in gas prices is like a person calling the ambulance for a guy they just shot.

Just like Republicans blaming him for the rise right?

[Jungle Rat]

Good old Rex. UK Legend.

[Jungle Rat]

[DooKSucks]

Good old Rex. UK Legend.

I'm not eCat by any means, but that is grossly misleading. I am not saying Pelley did so intentionally either. I doubt either he or his producers know too damn much about guns to say the least.

Will a standard .223 round tumble in the target once it makes contact at close range? Yes.

What they didn't tell you -- and the producers / Pelley may not have known this -- is that any rifle with decent power or more will tumble if it suddenly loses massive amounts of speed upon impact. I'm not a physicist / ammo expert able to break down all of that, but the short of it is that the speed keeps the bullet spiraling and steady (think of a football spiral...same physics. When the bullet suddenly contacts something and transfers it energy and loses a large amount of speed suddenly, the bullet becomes unstable at which point it tumbles around.

Also, if Scott Kelly thinks that's impressive damage to a 16" slab of ballistics gel, he should see what a 3" 12ga slug would do to that gel or worse a human.

The problem isn't the weapons themselves. It's the magazines. Magazine capacity is the issue, into. Rate of fire can be as high as you want it to be, and your round can do whatever it is that it was designed to do. However, the real issue is magazine capacity, because if the amount of rounds you can shoot is limited, the other two only mean so much, and while the shooter can insert new magazines, the shooter has to stop and all sorts of things can -- and often do -- go wrong when changing magazines in live fire situations, even for trained professionals much less a dipshit on a shooting spree. Plus, that time with the magazine change can allow someone to take defensive action or evade the shooter.

There is no practical means by which to take AR-15's, AK's or any other assault weapon off of the street or even take high capacity magazines off of the street. The only effective -- and they are not totally effective to say the least -- methods would be to ban the sale and transfer of high capacity magazines and close any still-existing loopholes for stuff like gun show sales. Person to person sales will happen, but I still think the other measures would really cut down on high capacity magazines circulating into the hands of those who would use them to do harm, albeit not overnight.

[Jungle Rat]

I just don't see a reason for them besides military.

[innocentbystander]

I just don't see a reason for them besides military.

But that doesn't matter. You have ZERO AUTHORITY to determine why someone may want a high capacity magazine with a high rate of fire. They will tell you that your "lack-of-reason" means nothing to them. And they would be correct. You can't decide for others what kind of firearm they can or can't own because you don't see a reason for something.

[DooKSucks]

I just don't see a reason for them besides military.

But that doesn't matter. You have ZERO AUTHORITY to determine why someone may want a high capacity magazine with a high rate of fire. They will tell you that your "lack-of-reason" means nothing to them. And they would be correct. You can't decide for others what kind of firearm they can or can't own because you don't see a reason for something.

Yet federal law — as do most state laws — prevent felons and people subject to domestic violence protective orders from owning firearm, and fully automatic weapons are illegal to own/possess absent special permits….

It’s shocking that you’re wrong yet again.

[aTm]

I think attorneys should be subject to a registry so anybody can look up where they live. We already do that for sex offenders so Im sure there’s no problem

[Jungle Rat]

Then most are already on the list.

[innocentbystander]

I just don't see a reason for them besides military.

But that doesn't matter. You have ZERO AUTHORITY to determine why someone may want a high capacity magazine with a high rate of fire. They will tell you that your "lack-of-reason" means nothing to them. And they would be correct. You can't decide for others what kind of firearm they can or can't own because you don't see a reason for something.

Yet federal law — as do most state laws — prevent felons and people subject to domestic violence protective orders from owning firearm, and fully automatic weapons are illegal to own/possess absent special permits….

It’s shocking that you’re wrong yet again.

That was not the point I was making. So no, I am not wrong.

The point I was making is that it doesn't matter what an individual thinks of another individual who likes to own firearms. No individual has the authority to tell me that I can't have an AR-15. I don't own a fire arm. But far be it for me to tell you what you can or can't have.

As far as federal law goes and not being able to own a machine gun, well, the law is wrong. And I would vote to repeal it if I could. If I want an Uzi, I should be able to have an Uzi. We can change a law from 1986 if we want DS. Sometimes the fed fucks up. It took us 49 years to fix Satan's bargain he made with feminists back in 1973.

As far as the protective order goes, I think the TRO prevents you from having a firearm so long as the TRO is in effect. Once it is vacated by another judge who "hears-your-side" (as most of them eventually vacate if no actually charges have been made in an emergency situation) you can march yourself right down to the police department and get your guns back. Just present the same restraining order they presented you when they took your guns with another judge's signature saying that all law enforcement agencies MUST dispose of all records and the order "never happened." If the Chief of Police gives you a hard time with both vacating the order and returning your firearms (as most of them do because there are a "second-set-of-books" which means feminist imperative trumps written state law for law enforcement agencies in vacating TROs) then be civil, record the conversation in its entirety, and sue the police department and the chief for breaking the law in not returning the firearms they confiscated via TRO. Go to court, you wont need a lawyer you already have law on your side. The Chief wont give you your guns back (by the time it goes to court, they will have "lost them") but the judge/jury will give you a big ass check cut from their budget in a civil suit, as well you should. And hopefully, the Chief will lose his job for breaking the law. And he should lose his job.

[Jungle Rat]

Good Lord

[Jungle Rat]

[Jungle Rat]

A picture of pure health.

20220730_145231.jpg (51.03 KiB) Viewed 266 times

[Tree]

Trump. Now even fatter than William Howard Taft. And I'm pretty sure those adult depends rumors are true too by the looks of it.

[Jungle Rat]

To be honest I really hope that's photoshopped. His doc says he's top 10% health wise.

[Jungle Rat]

Nope. It really is a disgusting pig. Trump looks horrible too.

20220730_233338.jpg (60.8 KiB) Viewed 260 times

[Tree]

I hope it's all photoshopped. What kind of an idiot, esp one that's never done a single decent thing in his life, wears his own name on his shirt?