XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: nospam@buggeroff.com   
      
   "Dechucka"  wrote in message   
   news:ypCdnfYvWOYj3fvMnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...   
   >   
   > "Spartan613"  wrote in message   
   > news:yGq9t.473$e66.362@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...   
   >> "Dechucka"  wrote in message   
   >>> I realize that is lucky that others have not come up with your brilliant   
   >>> idea before thus making tanks redundant Now tell us how you will disable   
   >>> the USS Ronald Reagan with your .22   
   >>   
   >> That statement just proves you have the intellectual horsepower of a   
   >> rubber band.   
   >>   
   >> The discussion has moved beyond your "technical expertise" (you have   
   >> fuck-all) and now you're deploying the Leftard tactic of ridiculous   
   >> strawmen, to sway the argument away from the one you've already lost.   
   >   
   > why? it is just as inane an idea as stopping the Abrams with his .22 and   
   > based on the same flawed principle   
      
   Sorry.   
      
   The discussion is about disabling a tank by attacking the crew.   
      
   A pity you know fuck all about tanks and unconventional warfare tactics,   
   isn't it?   
      
   (You won't let that slow you down though, will you?)   
      
   --   
   "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not   
   want merely because you think it would be good for him".   
      
   Robert A. Heinlein.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)