• Log In
  • Register


Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 3 days ago

Correction: Sorry, not 1,000,000 : 1 hit, 50,000 : 1 hit.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 4 days ago

Honestly dude that was just the straw that broke the camels back, not the first or only time you've gone off the deep-end.

Perhaps. If you are referring to the transgender issue, I admit my fallacy in some thought there (as I did at the time). And, I've since modified my opinions on the matter to an extent. I would think that persuading someone closer to your side of thinking would be something that you could be proud about and seen less as your 'opponent' "going off the deep end."

As for other issues that I have "went off the deep end" I cannot say any specifically come to mind, but maybe I'm missing them. I don't see my self as always right. And I don't see myself as infallible. But, I will not capitulate an idea if I haven't been given good reason to (which you have at times, and you haven't at other times). I don't believe that to be a negative trait, inherently.

This is what I am talking about. My argument of a very specific claim that is intentionally made unverifiable yet asserted with certainty ("there IS an invisible undetectable dragon in my garage") is categorically NOT the same as saying, "Absence of evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial aliens does not mean aliens do not exist." You either cannot differentiate the clear difference in these statements or you are unwilling to.

Well, I cannot fault your logic here. If you maid an affirmative claim and I took it the way I did, I was in the wrong. I think I read into that what I wanted. But, I have to say I'm a bit confused why you used an affirmative claim such as there "IS" a monster in your garage when the begining of that discussion started with no affirmative claims about God. Only that God could exist. I never once claimed God did exist. So, why you would take an example using an affirmative claim the way you did to compare the too seems odd. And, it threw me off, apparently. But, I'm still at fault for not clearly enough interpreting what you wrote. See, we can both admit faults here.

You demanded a "says who?"

I should have been more clear. What I meant was: what informed evidence or source do you have to make this assertion or are you making it without evidence or a source to corroborate your thesis? You're a smart enough guy to know gut instincts and feelings aren't to be given much credence alone. I've got a little experience with these types of weapons (not much, admittedly <1000 rounds). But, I have read or listened to several speakers with much more experience than I have say quite similar things towards the effectiveness of full auto at all but the closest of distances.

You 'assumed' correctly (I mean I've been pretty explicit I think).

You didn't explicitly say it as far as I can remember, so I showed caution. Not necessarily unwise.

1) Most firefights don't occur at that range to begin with.

Entirely depends on what conflict and which zone you are referring to. Most of the conflict that took place in Iraq happened at reasonable close proximities (~100 meters or less) while the fighting that took place in Afghanistan tended to take place at much longer distances (~200-500 meters). If looking at Afganistan as a more apropos.

2) The shooter was in a fixed position, so that part doesn't apply anyways. But obviously the accuracy factor drops substantially if you're not in a fixed position.

Not the shooter, the bipod. A fixed position bipod or tripod is one that weighs a considerable amount and is 'fixed' in position allowing for much greater control and accuracy. The shooter did not have such a bipod and instead had a traditional mounted bipod which does increase accuracy and control, but not nearly as much.

It's very rare for you to have such an elevated position over your targets, and

Rare as in what sense? Rare in the sense of mass shooting? Sure. It's happened on several occasions, but it's not the norm. Rare in the sense of more traditional engagements? Not so much. In fact, most bases and fortifications are constructed specifically with elevation in mind to give an advantage to those defending. So, while in some cases it can be rare (depending on what you're looking at), it's not abnormal, either.

This is very easy to find in society if your objective is terrorism; not easy if you are part of a state military that is attempting to fight specific enemy combatants and minimize civilian casualties (did I really need to explain all that?). They don't train for scenarios like this in the military because scenarios like this don't exist for our military to train for.

Yes, scenarios in which mass mobilization in relatively small geographic locations are trained for. Invasions often hit key locations with large forces and have to prepare to assault such defenses. And, defensive training of such fortifications deals with area of fire and suppression tactics. These are nearly an apples-to-apples comparison in the sense of personell density. You even stated one such event, Normandy. But, also Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Stalingrad, the seige of Bastogne, Germany's Blitzkreig through the Ardennes forest, etc. These specific scenarios, in which large groupings of people have had to experience very similar defensive/ offensive positions to the ones the the nutjob in LV occupied. These militaries still did not and do not train their soldiers / marines to use full automatic like that. The most effective killers on the beaches of Omaha were MG34s/MG42s (LMGs mounted in a fixed position), mortars, and semi-automatic or bolt action rifles.

But, to get a much better comparison you have to look to Vietnam, the epitome of wasted ammunition. A few years into the war, the standard pattern rifle was the M16. They were fighting mostly in the jungle at this time and couldn't see their targets very well, yet they were densely packed in the forest, often with little cover (but with concealment). So, our soldiers would see a small group and fire full automatic into the location. More often then not, they hit nothing. It is estimated that for every 1,000,000 rounds fired, one hit their mark. Not hard to imagine that the ones firing semi-automatic M14s, M1 carbines, and M1903 Springfields had a much higher hit percentage to than the whole. To be fair, this is due to several reasons including visual, distance, and action type (fully or semi). An excerpt from a Quora contributor (I know, less than reputable so take it for what it's worth), Mr. Gary Rowell, M.S. Military Studies, 30 years DoD, 500 days combat, 38 firefights in Marines:

Fully automatic fire with a rifle, regardless of rifle type, is notoriously inaccurate, except at very close range. I used M14s and M16s in Vietnam, and fired AK47s a number of times. M14s kick hard. Firing a 20 round magazine fully automatic will guarantee that 18 rounds will be above the height of a person at 20 meters. An M16 is slightly better, and an AK47 about equal to an M16.

And, having fired some of the weapons he refers to, I have to agree. At 20 yards, you're going to shoot 90% of the ammo above the target (maybe by 6" maybe a foot). What do you think an extra few hundred yards are going to do when the angle of difference is carried out? It will be off between 20-50 feet higher than first shot's point of aim. Likely far in excess of anyone else that was in the crowd. He could have killed more had he fired semi-automatic, and he likely would have. I can empty a 30 round magazine in maybe 20-30 seconds if I'm taking my time aiming to the point where I'm likely to hit each time (especially if firing into a group). That's 40-60 shot per minute and that's assuming I can't speed it up more due to the compact nature of the victims. ****, man this turned into a shitshow just by me saying I believe he would have killed more if he didn't use the worthless bumpstock that anyone has ever shot one criticizes as useless. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When there ARE relatively-large groups of enemy combatants together and exposed, they just missile them with a drone. Way faster and safer than putting boots on the ground.

So, you're under the impression that militaries around the world rely on drone strikes to such an extent that they don't teach their combatants siege and fortification warfare? Really?

Please don't start a new argument over whether you think the LV shooter could have done more damage with semi-automatic rifles than with missiles from a drone.

That would be a stupid argument and have no basis in reality as opposed to my current argument which is backed up by military tactics around the world and isn't in contestment anywhere but in forums by people that haven't experienced it.

I haven't. But I have confidence in your shooting ability that, if I put ~20,000 pieces of paper together in a relatively tight pattern, sat you 500 yards away from an elevated position, gave you fully automatic weapons on bipods and unlimited ammo and 10 minutes? I bet you could put more holes in those papers with the full auto weapons than you could with whatever your preferred semi-auto weapons.

You would almost certainly loose that bet. Now, turn that AR 15 with a standard bipod into a LMG with a fixed tripod and I would completely agree. But, as your thesis stands, unlikely.

Frankly I bet your trigger finger would get tired with the semi-autos, triggering for 10 minutes straight without pause.

With a Timney trigger set to between 1.5-3lbs trigger break, unlikely.

Your accuracy would be **** with the full auto, but it wouldn't matter.

Yeah, it would. Because full auto isn't inaccurate all over the place. It's inaccurate up. Your muzzle would climb nearly instantly and cause all but your first shot or two to miss. I don't even think he used the bumpstock much. From all of the recordings that I heard, they sounded like quick paced semi-auto shots.

Forum Topic "What was the scariest part of building your first PC?"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 4 days ago

True, but it's the difference between, say, a $100 mistake and a $1000 mistake.

Forum Topic "Curved Monitor vs Curved TV"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 4 days ago

So long as the curve angle, resolution, panel type, and refresh rates are consistent the only difference I can think of would be the distance at which you could sit from it and still have it fill the majority of your field of view.

Forum Topic "Astronomy this week..."

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 4 days ago

that is true but still the potential damage of these small meteors is huge.



Forum Topic "Hello everyone. I'm back."

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 5 days ago

But...what if he doesn't want to?

Forum Topic "Hello everyone. I'm back."

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 5 days ago

Don't worry! We're still flying half a general!

Forum Topic "Hello everyone. I'm back."

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 5 days ago

No. Did you?

Forum Topic "Astronomy this week..."

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 5 days ago

Luckily the last several that have caused large scale detonations took place in uninhabited locations. If one of those blew over a city....not good.

Forum Topic "Hello everyone. I'm back."

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 5 days ago


General Rogers.

Forum Topic "HardOCP shutting down."

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 5 days ago

I might be more concerned if it was set for April 20, 2019.

Intel's taking a new route now, bois.

Forum Topic "OT Throwback Thread"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 5 days ago

RIP Icarus Jipster.

Forum Topic "OT Throwback Thread"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 5 days ago

Not from the "Glory Days"


mid 2017


Sees first TTIH from ~end of 2017


Well ****.

Forum Topic "Spamming Spammers"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 5 days ago

They are using prerecorded unsolicited messages, which are against the TCPA.


Doesn't it seem like a waste of YOUR time to stoop to a criminals level to waste their time?

Didn't have anything better to do at the time, so not really, no.

Forum Topic "Spamming Spammers"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 5 days ago

I had a telemarketer from the US call me the other day about enrolling in insurance. They have done this several times in the past but this time they messed up; they forgot to spoof their number. So, I proceeded to call them back repeatedly asking them if they knew they were breaking the law by using unsolicited prerecorded calls, to which they immediately hang up. On the second call they guy gave me his name so every call back from that point I asked to speak to him (and they actually connected me to him). I screwed with him for a while before they blocked my number. Spoofed my number and proceeded to continue doing it for about an hour. Didn't have anything better to do at the time, so felt like a good way to kill an hour. Ended it by reporting them to the FTC.

Forum Topic "Spamming Spammers"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 5 days ago

While I understand and respect that, you'd be surprised how many of them let their true feelings go once they know it's not going to work and just start berating us for being American. Also, they're breaking our laws so I feel no sympathy for them. I don't generally respect criminals. But, like I said, I respect your approach, it's just not one I share.

Forum Topic "Spamming Spammers"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 5 days ago

I like to screw with telemarketers. Just to waste their time.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 5 days ago

Not familiar. Could you share the clip?

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 5 days ago

You've accurately portrayed the nature of my state.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 5 days ago

Phew I haven't thoroughly read all that because I am gonna leave work soon

No worries. It is that time of the day.

It is a machine that was created by humans to kill. A gun is a device designed to end life, more often than not these days a human life. That is its sole function. If that stirs up emotions, I hope they're emotions about the loss of life.

Okay, I get that. And, I agree, guns were made to kill people with only minority subsets to the contrary. And, vehicles the opposite. But, if there are more people kills by "x" per year, then by "y" would it not be logical to say that "x" should carry the restrictions that are proposed for "y" due to similar severities of outcomes?

You might call a car a killing machine in a hyperbolic way if you felt it was particularly unsafe or poorly designed though, but you wouldn't be describing its literal function, just underscoring a lack of safety.

I'm not really addressing either of those. It wasn't designed to kill, and most cars aren't unsafe to the extent to reasonably use it in such a colloquial way. What I am addressing, are the effects that result from said item, in this case, vehicles.

Plenty of things were not designed to kill, but have killed many people. Many of the drugs that are used for lethal injection were not designed for the purpose of killing, yet they do, and in that use, they can be considered a killing machine (if running loose with "machine"). TNT was designed mostly for construction and demolition, yet it was used in numerous weapons to kill. The intended purpose of an item falls behind its applied use, in my opinion. And, really, in a broader sense, intention nearly always falls behind results to me.

On an unrelated note, do you also get a little twisted around at times when we are having two ongoing discussions simultaneously? lol

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 2 points 5 days ago

He injured 422. He killed an additional 58, for a total of 480. Which is a pretty reasonable number for "almost 500".

Fair enough. You have a point there.

it's not intellectually lazy.

Yes, it is very intellectually lazy. Let's assume what I said in the past at that time was nonsensical. To then say roughly "person once said "x" so we can discount everything they are saying now, and don't have to go through the process of actually rebutting their claims."

That's the epitome of intellectual laziness.

and you ended on the argument that you couldn't even begin to decide one way or the other about something that patently flies in the face of physics and all known reality, which I was claiming without evidence.

No, I ended the argument by stating that without evidence a proper conclusion can't be made one way or the other. And, those that make conclusions with an absence of evidence are doing themselves a disservice. Absence of evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial aliens does not mean aliens do not exist. Having no evidence that there is a missing link, does not mean there is not one. Having no evidence that there are bugs out there we have yet to discover does not mean they are not there. There is a reason why this form of argument is invalid, and it's because it does not determine anything.

Here's an example: a quick search says Chris Kyle has the highest confirmed kill count of any US sniper, at 160. He was a Navy SEAL sniper, and did four tours over the course of six years. The LV shooter did over a third of that kill count in 10 minutes and barely aimed.

You just compared a person shooting into a crowd of 10,000+ unarmed people to a operator that underwent dozens if not hundreds of missions targeting as few as 1 person at a time to as much as maybe a couple dozen at a time? That's a comparison that cannot even almost be made in good faith.

But if you think it's reasonable for someone to down more than 50 people per minute at 500 yards, like... set this imaginary guy loose with a vehicle, some air support, and enough ammo, and he'd be done clearing out ISIS in a 40 hour work week. The only difficulty would be travel time.

Well, I guess if reality doesn't suit your argument it's best to go hyperbolic. But, lets work with this hyperbole; if the person was drugged up to the extent that you say, and he hit ~48/minute, you don't think it possible for someone to hit more in the same time if they weren't drugged up and / or trained, even if they were limited to semi-automatic?

I don't like to assume much, but I can only assume from the way you describe the situation that you believe the "full auto" is what allowed this many people to be injured / killed. Yet, as you agreed, no modern military is training people to do this (and, no, they aren't trained to use full auto from a standard rifle on a bipod from that distance either). So, why is this, if it's the determining factor. Wouldn't militaries benefit from teaching people to do this if it's more effective than semi-auto?

I don't know if you've ever shot full auto or with a bump stock. But, I imagine if you had, you'd not be making the argument you are now. I can put 30 shots on paper, with semi automatic from 20 yards. Getting 10 shots on paper from 20 yards is lucky in full auto.

I have all the many shootings where people have used semi-automatic weapons, and haven't killed and injured nearly as many people.

Were they sitting from an elevated position shooting into a crowd for 10 minutes? If not, per your statement, these factors must be normalized and makes a comparison impossible.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 5 days ago

He justified ignoring 50% of the 2nd amendment (and all the history of the militias to boot, and all the context that other parts of the Constitution provide in proscribing rules for the militias)

No. He didn't "ignore" half of the 2nd Amendment. He saw the majority of the emphasis being placed on the phrasing of "The People" which, in the context of the rest of the Constitution referred specifically to the individual.

But, I need to go down the rabbit hole here; what is a militia? A body of people that have come together to protect their society, generally. Militias aren't generally controlled by government, but let's just say it is to the sake of argument. So, if we assume that the Second Amendment affirmed the rights of militias to keep and bear arms, and they are a device of the government, then wouldn't the Second Amendment have solidified the governments right to keep and bear arms? If we assume that militias are a device not of the government, then the Second Amendment guaranteed militias, and those that constitute it, the right to bear arms. Those that constitute it being The People. So, how can militias form if The People do not have the right to bear arms?

Also, it should be touched on that an important phrase is "well regulated." What did this mean to the founders? Was it to have a regulatory body of them to ensure they are regulated well? Or, was their intention that "well regulated" referred to being in good operating capacity and well working form? This latter interpretation lines up more closely to other uses of the phrase between the 18th and 19th centuries.

"A militia in good working order and capacity being necessary to the security of a free state, with the people being the composition of the militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

When phrased in more modern language, it certainly would make sense if this were their intention.

Rough drafts, aka, things that have no legal merit above the final draft.

You are correct in that they have no legal merit. But legal merit was not what Scalia was looking for. He was looking for contextual understanding of phrasings and their intended interpretations.

actual words in the actual amendment.

Can't we look to their other writings to get an idea for how they intended the amendment to be interpreted? Like, these:

Starting with the most apropos

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

  • Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

  • George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

  • James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

  • Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

  • Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

  • Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."

  • George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

  • Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

  • Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

  • Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

  • Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

  • Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

  • Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."

  • Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."

  • George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

  • James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."

  • James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

  • William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

  • Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

  • St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."

  • Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

  • Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

  • Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

  • Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

  • Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

  • Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

  • Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

You have to normalize all that first to establish a baseline for comparison.

That depends on the comparison you wish to make. If you are looking at absolute values to determine which item or thing causes more death you don't have to normalize. Absolute value wise, a car is a machine that kills more people than firearms and thus can be described as a killing machine. Then again, if you only look at original design I suppose the bat bomb developed in WWII was a killing machine. But...it never killed anyone. Ever. So, using terms like "killing machine" is a pretty blatant attempt at stirring up emotions without real pertinence placed on the efficacy of said items actual effect.

Tricky question. I have mixed feelings. Tentatively I'd say yes, technically, they "should" "be allowed" to refuse. But, that they should not do that.

That's good. While I don't support some of the things it leads to I can't deny it's legality. Just like local municipalities can create effective "sanctuary cities" by refusing to work with federal immigration enforcement agencies. Personally, I don't agree with it. But, hey, that's their right as a locality.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

True whether he was firing automatic or not.

True, but a lot less ability to accurately aim while firing full auto, as opposed to semi.

Look, honestly, I'm just gonna direct people to the time you said you couldn't be certain whether my claim of an invisible undetectable dragon living in my garage was a reasonable argument or not.

That seems intellectually lazy of you. Also, as I alluded to in that discussion, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But if you want evidence, I have some: the las vegas shooting we are talking about.

But his weapon was not capable of fully automatic fire.

He shot almost 500 people.

No, he shot 422 people.

Are you telling me you think he could have shot more than 50 people per minute

Certainly. Are you telling me you don't think it possible?

(most of whom were frantically moving)

From the CCTV of the shooting that I saw, the vast majority of people were ammassed into large groups, making targeting anyone in said group quit simple. Aim at one, hit the one behind them because you're only off by a couple of inches. Then take another shot when the muzzle comes back to it's original location. As opposed to a bumb stock which the first shot may be accurate, but the second shot is ten+ feet higher downrange.

He would be the greatest marksman of all time without question, approaching superhuman.

According to whom?

Literally doesn't matter. The results speak for themselves.

Except you have nothing to compare these results to in order to determine is was the faux 'full auto' that was what allowed that large of a body count.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

The TLDR is that Scalia was a constitutional fan fiction author

Why is that? Did he misconstrue the founders intentions?

If you couldn't get a TS/SCI clearance, you shouldn't be able to get a killing machine (with reasonable outlier exceptions of course)

And the obligatory; cars are involved in more deaths per year than firearms. Which, makes them a more effective killing machine, statistically speaking.

Somewhat tangential, but, in your opinion, should my state be allowed to refuse to work with the federal government to enforce firearms laws?

Forum Topic "Karma Numbers"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 3 points 6 days ago

It was a trick!

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

There is a reason that no modern military in the world trains to engage at a distance in full auto with standard, non fixed position, rifles. It's not just shooting fish in a barrel, two inches and that would be hit is a complete miss. I'm still very happy he made what I would consider a blunder if his objective was to kill as many people as possible and decided to use a bump stock. I have very little doubt, given the time he had, that more would be dead had he not thought a bump stock was a good idea.

which is that giving full auto or full-auto-like weapons to people indiscriminately is a piss poor idea.

Maybe. But, as there is an extremely small amount of data to support this, it's an assumption and not necessarily true. It's one thing to conjecture and say it is probably a bad idea, or could be a bad idea. It's another to say it is a bad idea without supporting evidence. Unless you have some, in which case I can more readily understand your opinion on the matter.

And, it should be mentioned, that shooting bumpstock firearms in "full auto" is about the least accurate way to shoot. Period. You'd be better off shooting between your legs while being punched in the face.

Forum Topic "OT Throwback Thread"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 6 days ago

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

No, really, ban that stuff

Like most people, I started in the PLOW and CPLFM forums. I think that might have been the first OT I actually remember seeing. Had to go looking for it, lol. Back before my old account got....let's not talk about that.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

Most infantry units are equipped with M16A2 rifles. These only feature semi, safe, and 3-round burst. Generally speaking, mostly specialized teams get M16A3s or M4A1s (capable of full auto). And, they only really benefit from full auto when clearing very close quarters rooms.

Forum Topic "Hello everyone. I'm back."

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 6 days ago

Well, hello there, neighbor.

Edgar_21's Completed Build: First ever PC!

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

I mean, I suppose the 8350K would be a better choice than an R5 if they want high frame rates and only plan on gaming. Aside from that niche use, not the best, lol.

Edgar_21's Completed Build: First ever PC!

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

Lol, it happens.

Forum Topic "Video Game OSTs"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

Halo 3's is where it's at.

Edgar_21's Completed Build: First ever PC!

tragiktimes101 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

You, have it backwards, friend. Ryzen is better for 'casual' gaming (Ryzen 3, 5). Intel is better for 'hardcore' gaming (i5, i7).

Forum Topic "Karma Numbers"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 6 days ago



Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 2 points 6 days ago

It's hard enough with an M4/M16, which is getting close to the best full autos to shoot accurately (still hard as hell to control effectively). Forget about trying it with an M14 or machine pistol.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

It'd be fun if it started the 2nd civil war

Not so sure about "fun." I imagine it would be a bloody and terrible war.

I've got 1 uncle who has a job in ammo/weapon manufacturing, the dude has multiple GLs/Mortars).

I would like to meet your uncle, lol.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

Having shot full auto on several occasions, I don't think that it would be in an mass shooter's best interest. Without a lot of training you are almost certainly going to miss far more than if you took accurate, single shots. I'm thankful the idiot in LV used bumb stocks like he did. Otherwise, the body-count would have likely been quite a bit higher.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

And allowing fully-automatic rifles to be distributed without registration--that's just insane.

Why is that?

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 2 points 6 days ago

and Florida Man

Actually, he's the one we've got our eyes on....

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 2 points 6 days ago

are you now genetically modifying bald eagles? or are they cyborgs/robots?


and if you strap them to your feet, there's a good chance that animals rights activists will show up at your door.

Won't matter, I won't be there anymore. I'll be in the skyyyy.

Oh, and make sure that you didn't buy your flamethrower from elon musk. those suck.

In Missouri, we make our own. They only tend to explode when shaken too hard.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 0 points 6 days ago

Exponentially higher risk of mass shootings.

Not sure if there is any evidence to support this presupposition.

Then you only further a government divide.

This may be. But, rather than widening the divide I think it more intended to highlight hypocricy.

I believe the 2nd amendment calls for a well-regulated militia, not an unorganized one. :P

That's been hotly debated. If the requirement of the expression of the right lies upon the prefatory clause, then it would have implied a more "collective rights theory" approach that wouldn't have protected an individual right to the possessions of arms. If it lies upon the postface clause, then it would fall into the "individual rights theory" category, which would prohibit infringement on an individual from bearing arms. This is where the scholars are divided. Personally, I'm of the mindset that the founders clearly expressed their intention for the amendment to protect individual possession rather than collective possession. My interpretation mostly derives from several quotes from the founders, whether they be in constitutional ratification conventions, private correspondence, or public publication. I could post some of the quotes if you're interested. But, I don't want to go all quote slinging crazy unsolicited. lol

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

To be fair, that bill was never meant to pass and even if it did, is set to be amended to forgo the requirement and the weapon type.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

No one should have <insert arbitrary item here>.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

No one needs <insert 99.99% of all things ever created here>.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 6 days ago

You forgot the important part about having to purchase a firearm registered as a full automatic with the BATF before 1986, which greatly limits the supply and ups the cost. If I wanted to turn my AR-15 full auto legally I would have to purchase a pre-86 auto seer, which runs between 15-25k.

That restriction, was meant to, and effectively, phase out full automatics from the population as registered parts break and a shrinking supply meets a growing demand.

Forum Topic "Video Game OSTs"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 2 points 6 days ago

I loved Cupheads OSTs, so I might have to lean towards that one.

Forum Topic "Video Game OSTs"

tragiktimes101 1 Build 3 points 6 days ago

Hell, yeah. Halo has some great "ahhhhooohhhahhhh" OSTs.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 2 points 6 days ago

But... it's just my state proposing them. lol

It should be noted that this is the way that was suggested in Federalists #46 by James Madison to address unlawful restrictions on states - refusal to work with federal law enforcement. A state isn't required to work with federal law enforcement.

Forum Topic "My state is crazy....in a great way"

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 2 points 6 days ago

Requirement of all adults to own an AR 15

What you cited from me was referring to Bills 367 and 1039. Not to be confused with bills 1108 and 1052. So, it's specifically addressing residing past federal firearms restrictions such as the 1934 Firearms Control Act.

As far as I'm aware of, there have been an incredibly small number of cases involving full auto weapons being used in crimes. So, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be very smart. But, I'm open to hearing arguments as to why they wouldn't be.