Particle's Custom RPG

General => Off-The-Wall (OTW) => Topic started by: -eViL- on November 22, 2004 08:26 am CST

Title: America's Apology???
Post by: -eViL- on November 22, 2004 08:26 am CST
Sorry world, on behalf of half of the USA:
Sorry Everybody (http://http://sorryeverybody.com)

And also check out the rest of the world's reponse:
Apology accepted (http://http://apologiesaccepted.com/index.html)

Can someone please find me a loaded m16 with an extra clip so I can kill the bastard that decide to do that?  We put up with 30 years of terrorism within our borders and on our embassies in other contries, and he thinks we need to feel sorry for saying fork you to saddam?  I say go Bush, teach the unsavory womanes a lesson about forking with our embassies.
Title:
Post by: Particle on November 22, 2004 08:52 am CST
Is this close enough?

(http://http://www.bushmaster.com/le/LE-Patrolman-Carb-A2-Blue.jpg)

(http://http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/magazines/8448670.jpg)

(http://http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/magazines/8448670.jpg)

(http://http://a1460.g.akamai.net/f/1460/1339/6h/www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/Item/21/51/94/i215194sq01.jpg)
Title:
Post by: 12Stones on November 26, 2004 05:53 pm CST
Uhg..  that's simply rediculous.  If the "other half" of the country was as smart as they proclaim to be, they would quit being whiny little unsavory womanes and try to support our nation regardless of it's leadership.  Apparently they can't grasp the fact that a divided nation is far far worse than a nation who has a bad leader, but the people make the best of it.

I'm sure that site will get owned by every bush fan with the ability to cause DoS, anyways.
Title:
Post by: Myst on December 7, 2004 01:39 am CST
I have never seen evidence of Saddam doing anything bad since the first gulf war... most of the date I read of him doing anything are before 1991, so doesn't that mean he learned his lesson? -shrug- I'm not here to defend Saddam, but I can't help but feel we lacked evidence while going into the war... I just wonder why we pick on a nation that has maybe a 15% chance in the future of devoloping nuclear weapons while we don't strike at a country like north korea which has already declared itself a nuclear power and already has nuclear weapons? I have nothing against Bush, because for one thing he can't do anything without congress' approval... but Gulf War 2 is the first time in the history in the USA we've striked first... in every previous war we acted in only revenge but this time we bullied them.. though many believed we had a reason, it wasn't solid proof... for one thing, we still haven't found any weapons of mass destruction.
Title:
Post by: Karne on December 7, 2004 07:33 am CST
true..
Title:
Post by: DaveMan on December 7, 2004 04:20 pm CST
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/ (http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/)


interesting stuff on this site about conspiracies behind the war. lotsa convincing stuff too, in the freedomfiles.org main page video section.
Title:
Post by: DeadBreed on December 18, 2004 04:20 am CST
(http://http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/m203a.jpg)
use that, it has the M203 grenade launcher.
Title:
Post by: Particle on December 18, 2004 09:00 am CST
Only difference between that one and the one I posted is mine is legal to own as a normal civilian.

 8)
Title:
Post by: UnderGod on December 18, 2004 09:57 am CST
Guns don't kill people.

Lead does.
Title:
Post by: Ziros Suntol on December 20, 2004 07:13 am CST
Quote from: "Particle"
Only difference between that one and the one I posted is mine is legal to own as a normal civilian.

 8)


Yeah but DeadBreed is automatic
Title:
Post by: UnderGod on December 20, 2004 07:38 am CST
Which is exactly why it is illegal to own one as a civillian.
Title:
Post by: Ziros Suntol on December 20, 2004 09:19 am CST
Quote from: "UnderGod"
Which is exactly why it is illegal to own one as a civillian.
Which is exactly why i said:
Quote from: "Ziros Suntol"
Yeah...

At the begining of my comment.
Confirming my knowledge of such a restriction on that weapon.
Good job retard. It helps to read :wink:
Title:
Post by: UnderGod on December 20, 2004 10:17 am CST
Quote from: "Ziros Suntol"
Quote from: "Particle"
Only difference between that one and the one I posted is mine is legal to own as a normal civilian.

 8)

Yeah but DeadBreed is automatic


Not when you quote someone before you say such a thing.

Yeah could be answering what Particle said.

Particle didn't say WHY it is illegal to own one. I said why.

Maybe it would help if you learned to write better.
Title:
Post by: Ziros Suntol on December 20, 2004 12:07 pm CST
Hey, asshole. Stop trying to look SOOOOOOOOO e-cool out your ass and pay attention:

Read it like this

Particle: ...mine is legal to own as a normal civilian.
Ziros: Yeah but DeadBreed's is automatic.

That conversation answers 2 questions:
1. Particle’s was manufactured Semi-automatic and is legal to own as a civilian/ non assault weapon permit holding individual.
2. Yeah, it's legal but DreadBreed's is automatic. Since the shooting of these apologetic individuals is fictional, why the fu*k not have a gun you wouldn't normally posses?

Now pull you panties out your crack and get on with your life
Title:
Post by: UnderGod on December 20, 2004 09:53 pm CST
Last time I checked I wasn't the person starting an arguement. I was pointing out a fact. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. I am enjoying myself and I always will.

I don't even bother to insult you, and you come at me like a rampaging wolverine.

I personally don't care what types of weapons people own. I don't believe in people being insane with their actions. People are responsible for their own actions. In case you are lost at this point, this is bringing the thread somewhat back on topic since is amazingly went off very quickly.
Title:
Post by: Lidge Farkley on December 24, 2004 10:31 pm CST
I thought... I posted this allready... maybe that was at the trpg forums... hmm!
Title:
Post by: DeadBreed on December 30, 2004 06:29 pm CST
Quote from: "Particle"
Only difference between that one and the one I posted is mine is legal to own as a normal civilian.

 :)

http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm (http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm) M16A2 is the one i posted,
http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm (http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm) parted posted an M4
Title:
Post by: Ziros Suntol on January 3, 2005 09:48 am CST
Lmfao!
Quote from: "DeadBreed"
...and a flash hider.

God bless your ignorance...

If you wern't a f-ing retard you would realize that particles's posted weapon is completly leagal.
 It's a LE Patrolman CarbineA2 http://www.bushmaster.com (http://www.bushmaster.com)
Semi-automatic and 20 rds in the mag. bushmaster only sells leagal products. Now go back the the f*cker who told you about weapons and kick him in the balls...
Title:
Post by: Lidge Farkley on January 3, 2005 11:18 pm CST
Err...

I don't know about this alleged "2 of 3 of the following" idea, but in California it is not legal to own any long barrel weapon with a pistol grip, any weapons with a flash supressor, or any weapon with a large capacity magazine.  (among other things it cannot have/perform... as well as ammo regulations)

While we're blessing things with sarcasm I'd like to bless the drug wars of LA in the last half of the 20th century; bless them for helping spread gangs to northern California and bless them for legal regulations which don't affect criminals.  Whoo!

So... if we are talking about California, then I think DeadBreed is closer to correct than being a complete forking retard.  The only part of his post I call in to question is the "2 of 3" rule (which I have never heard, and I find nonsensical) as a description for Particles posted weapon as being illegal; that he might be called a retard on, but it may as well have been his informant misinformed him.

Anyway... chill out man.  It's not the end of the world.  No need to flip out.
Title:
Post by: DeadBreed on January 6, 2005 05:36 pm CST
anyway, yes i live in cali.  explain much?  anyway, at least i didnt threaten to sue over an RPG character  :roll:
Title:
Post by: Frantic on January 6, 2005 05:40 pm CST
Quote from: "DeadBreed"
anyway, yes i live in cali.  explain much?  anyway, at least i didnt threaten to sue over an RPG character  :lol:
Title:
Post by: Particle on January 6, 2005 05:47 pm CST
The "2 or more" thing is for the assault weapons ban, which expired last year.  It's a semi-auto weapon with a 16" barrel.  Even during the ban, it was legal though.  It was a post-ban legal design.

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/ (http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/)

That site explains it rather well.
Title:
Post by: Ziros Suntol on January 10, 2005 08:08 am CST
Yay Part!
Title:
Post by: DeadBreed on January 10, 2005 05:27 pm CST
wow just checked out the site.  that really did explain a lot of it.

Quote
Now that you've been introduced to what the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 accomplished and how and what it regulates, see if you can use that information to take the Assault Weapon Challenge. See if you can determine whether a weapon is a banned pre-1994 model or a legal post-1994 model. Remember these important criteria:

This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:

    * A folding or telescoping stock
    * A pistol grip
    * A bayonet mount
    * A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
    * A grenade launcher.