Forgot your password?

Comment: AR-15 (Score 1) 1

by RailGunner (#46758139) Attached to: It's just hard to take Justice Stevens seriously
If stupidity hurt, Stevens would require a morphine drip.

As far as why the AR-15 is so popular... everyone who ones one has their reasons that they like it, so I'll give you mine:

+ Accuracy. The hole in the paper is typically *exactly* where I wanted to put it, and if it isn't, it was my fault.
+ Recoil. The .223 Rem / 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge in an AR-15 has very little recoil. Women and some children can fire this weapon standing up. (Though our idiot VP says "Get a shotgun", I've seen too many women who were unable to handle a 12 gauge... but the AR-15? No problem.)
+ Rail system. The AR platform is very customizable with scopes, lights... some day, I'll trick mine out, but in the mean time I can still shoot a tick off a dog's ass at 100 yards with it with the iron sights. ;)

+ The .223 Rem / 5.56x45mm NATO round. Simply put, against a human target, this round is devastating. For self/home defense, the 30 round magazine allows for you to miss a few times and still put a hurting on the bad guy, and the round itself tumbles and fragments causing intense damage to internal organs despite being a comparably small projectile to even the often maligned 9mm round. This round will also take down smaller animals -- deer, wild hogs -- while some states will not let you hunt with the .223 cartridge, the .223 round WILL drop a deer.

(Not as reliably as that .30-06 rifle I'm hoping to get for my birthday, but it's still effective.)

Consider this:

And compare to my choice of handgun caliber, the mighty .45 ACP:

See the difference? It's breathtaking.

Of course, for pure devastation you need a .50 caliber rifle round:

So why do the gun grabbers hate it?

1. It's black, and most liberals are secretly racist
2. It's "scary" looking

In summation: accurate, low recoil, customizable, effective cartridge against both human and deer. AR-15's are AWESOME.

Comment: Re:So, it's wrong for a foundation to have values? (Score 1) 83

by RailGunner (#46697873) Attached to: Steyn on Eich
As a matter of fact, yes I have.

How did you miss the part where Marx wants to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle to help undermine and destroy the Catholic Church, who Marx saw as the lone defense against creating his totalitarian world order? Did you learn anything about what the French did to Catholic Clergy during the French Revolution?

(Looks at who posted... oh, right. Either you're 1. Lying again or 2. Didn't comprehend what you read. Either is possible.)

Comment: Re:So, it's wrong for a foundation to have values? (Score 1) 83

by RailGunner (#46697813) Attached to: Steyn on Eich
Then why not give that ability to Jesus as well?

Dictionary: Omniscient

I could explain this further to you, but then I truly would be casting pearls before swine. Therefore, I have no choice but to start ignoring you again, as you can't help yourself other than to be a weapons-grade idiot.

Perhaps the AC trolls are right and you are a fake liberal. Would be a shame if you were truly as stupid in real life as you appear on slashdot.

Comment: Re:For shame (Score 1) 27

by RailGunner (#46693833) Attached to: An old, ex-liberal, on the state of the Left
to the point of denying the fact that genetics has any effect on the "choices" we make.

Free will doesn't exist? Or are you simply claiming that you are essentially a mindless automaton?

unless you want to admit that religion is hereditary

Religion is a personal choice.

and can't be altered

Well, the Almighty himself says He is eternal and unchanging (as He is perfect), so why would there be a need for religion to be altered?

Churches adapt, and some language gets clarified, but the core tenets of the faith are unchanging.

Comment: Catholic Perspective (Score 1) 27

by RailGunner (#46693811) Attached to: An old, ex-liberal, on the state of the Left
Same sex attraction is not sin, it is temptation.
It is not sinful to be tempted, it is only sin when you act on it.

I find women attractive. If I act on that attraction with a women who is not my wife, I have sinned. Same goes for people with same sex attraction -- it's not sinful until they act on it.

Comment: Re:So, it's wrong for a foundation to have values? (Score 1) 83

by RailGunner (#46693769) Attached to: Steyn on Eich
If you want to make a claim that Jesus wasn't out to change anything, you can go ahead and try to present that case

I already did, by referencing Jesus being quoted as saying that He wasn't there to change the Law. And by law, of course, he meant Jewish Law which (among other things) prohibited homosexual contact -- in order words, it defined what is, and what is not, sinful.

It may help you to understand the Catholic Church's position: Same Sex attraction is not a sin. Just like it's not a sin for me to be attracted to women -- however, if I engage in sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage (not to MH42 -- yes, I'm oversimplifying this, but DR isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer) then I have sinned. Likewise, if a person with same sex attraction acts on it, and engages in homosexual activity, then they have sinned.

You quoted a part of a New Testament book, which was written after the life of Jesus

Some ignorant people on the left claim the New Testament says nothing about it, the apostle Paul's letter to the Roman's is proof otherwise. Do you know anything about Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus?

However being as you are using a "law" that was written into the bible after the passage of Jesus, how would he have been able to know anything of it?

He is eternal, and inspired Paul's writings. But in your specific pedantic complaint, Jesus was talking about Jewish Law, which Paul also knew very well, considering his early life persecuting Christians. Also noteworthy is the fact that Paul's writings do not contradict any moral laws.

So once again, your "argument" is utterly, completely, and totally wrong. As usual.

"Just Say No." - Nancy Reagan "No." - Ronald Reagan