Hitler said in “Mein Kampf”, the only difference between fascism and socialism is race.
 June 23, 2016 at 8:54am
Taurus and Led Zeppelin toured together. The tauras intro came before Zeppelin. Jimmy page definitely heard it before he wrote stairway
 June 13, 2016 at 2:15pm
 June 4, 2016 at 7:34am
Only problem. Watts riots/blacks. L.A. Riots/blacks. Ferguson riots/blacks. Cant say I’ve ever seen white people acting this way. I dont think I’d be mistaken in saying that blacks are more in the Democratic party than republican. And before you call me racist, I’m just stating facts. Unless facts are racist now.
 May 31, 2016 at 1:55pm
If Obama had a son….
 May 31, 2016 at 10:26am
I hear you. But when he says the full auto is more effective it shows he doesn’t know the history of the weapon. This guy probably just cobbled together some upper and lowers then called himself the inventor. I think HBO just found this guy on a google search, cross referenced with face book and twitter, then called it fact.
 May 31, 2016 at 10:15am
He also says the full auto was more effective. Not true. The barrel rise after three rounds would put the rifle off target, That’s why they changed it to three round burst. “God awful this article is!”, Jedi Master Yoda
Actually, the reason they changed it to a three round burst was because in Viet-Nam they found that soldiers in combat tended to use up all their ammo needlessly. Running out of ammo is a problem in combat. To prevent soldiers from pointing their rifle at an unseen enemy in the jungle and holding the trigger down until all the bullets were gone (often not hitting anyone), they changed it to a three round burst. The three round burst also helps prevent the barrel from over heating.
Not arguing with you by any means, but various muzzle brakes would probably solve that issue of the barrel rise. If it took you 15 seconds to pop off 30 rounds in an AR15, then it would take one third of that with the M16 in 3 round burst mode.
And here's the thing, Sullivan wasn't the inventor of the AR15, Stoner would have rolled over in his grave talking to these anti-gun turds. He was an associate of it's creation. Sullivan was more less responsible for another AR like weapon, the Ultimax 100, which borrowed from the AR15.
No, Stoner understood that the AR wasn't meant for full auto fire. It would never sustain long enough under the pressure. The barrel would melt down with all the gas and heat over time. Full auto was a temporary solution, not a permanent option. Even with today's technology and barrel processes, it's not recommended to fire the AR in full auto, as the liner and rifling in the barrel will eventually give way and cause problems for the continuation of it's use.
 May 31, 2016 at 10:11am
The current M-16 doesn’t fire in full automatic. It fires semi auto or 3 round burst. This isn’t new. Also Eugene Stoner invented this rifle. For this guy to say he “invented it” is ********. The only difference in the 2is the Ar-15 fires semi auto only. WTH?
SLOW: You're spot on about the original inventor, Eugene Stoner. Maybe it's more appropriate for this guy to call himself an innovator and not an "inventor", as such. Adding baggage to a long established platform can be very positive or cumbersome. To my perspective, the basic rifle will usually get the job done. You've heard the old expression, "a poor workman blames his tools."
Stoner invented the AR-10 while he worked for Armalite in 1954. Later, Robert Fremont and Jim Sullivan designed the AR-15 from the basic AR-10 model, scaling it down to fire the small-caliber .223 Remington cartridge, slightly enlarged to meet the minimum Army penetration requirements. The AR-15 was later adopted by United States military forces as the M16 rifle.
He didn't lie, just left out the fact that his (and Fremont's) design was based on Stoners invention.
 May 31, 2016 at 9:25am
My DD214 has some ribbons missing. Mostly unit citations that I didn’t care about. Wasn’t worth taking the time to fix.
BIDEN: The true significance of a "DD214" is to prove honorable service. If you were in fact honorable and not just some Bergdahl or PX Cowboy.
First, I am an old school grunt.
Second, I understand times change and tactics in warfare change with technology.
Third, I personally know that some of the targets Chief PO Kyle engaged saved Marine lives and he deserves our unending gratitude for using his skill to save lives.
What I don’t understand, from the service member perspective not that of the various suck-ups looking to make money off of another man’s valor, is why so many today seek/ are pushed/ used in the limelight based on killing.
I killed because I was a Marine in combat. I killed the enemy, and I killed to protect my Marines.
I am thankful for the Lord sparing me but I carry that weight on my immortal soul and judgement day I will be held to account for what I have done.
I don’t know what the right answer is but for me as a man (meaning I am flawed) I think it is better that the historians write the details of battle and all of us should treat those vultures that monetize and use men of valor as the parasites they truly are (If you think this is a slap at Chief – it most certainly is not, not).
May 24, 2016 at 9:19am
I know what you mean
 May 23, 2016 at 1:39pm
No, We Christans realize our religion is protected by the constitution.
ALL religions are protected by the Constitution. No matter how much they offend you.
In a church.
Not a public school.
It doesn't just apply to church.
Yup, all religions are protected by the constitution......including Atheism.
You can keep lying to yourself because you need to, but really, you're just going to look bad when you repeat those lies out loud.
Atheism is not a religion.
The sum and total of atheism is 'does not believe in gods', tell me how you make a religion out of that.
Ask a Buddhist how one has a religion without a god. Websters has one definition as a passionate conviction of a spiritual nature. Atheism certainly qualifies. The 7th Circuit legally defined it as having a position on the existence of a higher power, and that was a case where an Atheist sued to be recognized as a religion.
You qualify as a religious zealot…..ain’t you proud?
Buddhism has a whole set of beliefs and a way of life associated with it. There's far more to it than whether or not a god exists and it is a religion not dependent on a god.
Notice how you desperately avoid the question?
How is 'does not believe in gods', which is all you can say about atheists if you're being honest, enough to make a religion? Go on, answer that.
By the way, you're lying about what the court said or you're quoting a religious fundamentalist site that is lying to you. Take your pick.
Here is what the court actually said: Organized atheist groups are entitled to the same legal benefits as religious groups, without being a religion.
This is the same benefit some Humanist groups have had for decades.
But even if it were true that there were atheist groups that were 'religions' that wouldn't make atheism a religion, it would make those groups and the people who are members of them part of that religion, it wouldn't make 'all of atheism a religion'.
So again, let's get back the question you're desperately avoiding.
The sum and total of atheism is ‘does not believe in gods’, tell me how you make a religion out of that.
First, apologize for calling me a liar:
 May 23, 2016 at 12:59pm
Why the hell are they marching to the theme from Star Wars?