Project 1999

Project 1999 (/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic (/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   ******Official politics thread ****** (/forums/showthread.php?t=260341)

Raavak 03-26-2018 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickmoranis (Post 2680571)
america has enough tanks to use tanks

We don't have that many tanks, and the ones we have are old enough to get classic license plates.

Wonkie 03-26-2018 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raavak (Post 2680578)
We don't have that many tanks, and the ones we have are old enough to get classic license plates.

The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."

Todd Harrison, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst, said it was open to question whether the Army and the Marine Corps needed more tanks on top of the estimated 9,000 already in their inventories

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...esnt-want.html

mickmoranis 03-26-2018 01:45 PM

the tank debate? what is the tank debate?

Is this you pretending that libtards have known the number of tanks the us poses since 2012 or something?

When libs dont even know the difference between a winchester, an assualt riffle, and an assault weapon?

Psshhh sorry, NEXT

Raavak 03-26-2018 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickmoranis (Post 2680591)
When libs dont even know the difference between a winchester, an assualt riffle, and an assault weapon?

Assault rifles look scary. Amirite?

Patriam1066 03-26-2018 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonkie (Post 2680582)
The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."

Todd Harrison, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst, said it was open to question whether the Army and the Marine Corps needed more tanks on top of the estimated 9,000 already in their inventories

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...esnt-want.html

Just admit you're Italian

Ahldagor 03-26-2018 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickmoranis (Post 2680591)
the tank debate? what is the tank debate?

Is this you pretending that libtards have known the number of tanks the us poses since 2012 or something?

When libs dont even know the difference between a winchester, an assualt riffle, and an assault weapon?

Psshhh sorry, NEXT

Winchester is a brand. An assault weapon would be a general label for a device used in an assualt like a knife or brass knuckles for specific examples. An assault rifle is a rifle which is a gun that has rifling on the inside surface of the barrel. The assault adjective usually implies compact and concealable in terms of weaponry.

mickmoranis 03-26-2018 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahldagor (Post 2680602)
Winchester is a brand. An assault weapon would be a general label for a device used in an assualt like a knife or brass knuckles for specific examples. An assault rifle is a rifle which is a gun that has rifling on the inside surface of the barrel. The assault adjective usually implies compact and concealable in terms of weaponry.

Win·ches·ter
ˈwinˌCHestər,ˈwin(t)SHəstər/
noun
noun: Winchester; plural noun: Winchesters; noun: Winchester rifle; plural noun: Winchester rifles; noun: Winchester disk; plural noun: Winchester disks

1. a breech-loading side-action repeating rifle.

what we have in this exhibit is what is known as a "2000's era american liberal" this creature belives that the definitions of things are what 'they think' they should be.

An assault riffle is a fully automatic rifle. Period. Not what you describe.

An assault weapon is a made up term that you and every single person you think is smart, all have a varrying opionion of what it is but holds the same number of bullets and fires at the same rate of fire as a winchester does.

Spoiler, it is nothing, its a made up pair of words that has no definition whatsoever.

Based off your description an assault weapon is the same as any weapon only it looks like something the military would use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahldagor (Post 2680602)
The assault adjective usually implies compact and concealable in terms of weaponry.

"The assault adjective usually implies"

yes, lets make legislation about stuff that "usually implies" :rolleyes:

"if it is implied that someone has an assault weapon the police should be able to arrest and detain you and confiscate your property"

Raavak 03-26-2018 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickmoranis (Post 2680610)
An assault weapon is a made up term that you and every single person you think is smart, all have a varrying opionion of what it is but holds the same number of bullets and fires at the same rate of fire as a winchester does.

When I see assault weapon I think SAW or maybe M60 or grenade launcher if you're old school.

mickmoranis 03-26-2018 02:15 PM

its fair to think whatever you want, becuse there is no definition for the word assault weapon.

It means anything you want it to mean.

Like for example, libs use it to describe a scary looking gun. But what they really mean is ALL GUNS and to REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT they just haven't figured that out yet cus they just parrot whatever they hear someone else with a similar haircut yelling.

Wonkie 03-26-2018 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 (Post 2680600)
Just admit you're Italian

i have blue eyes (-:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.