Raider5678

Senior Members
  • Content count

    1715
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Good

About Raider5678

  • Rank
    Primate
  • Birthday 10/27/2002

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://jraider5678@gmail.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pennslyvania
  • Interests
    Physics, engineering, space, science in general with the exception of biology, and most of all: everything that I find interesting.
  • College Major/Degree
    Nothing
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Space

Recent Profile Visitors

12768 profile views
  1. Salt water eletrolysis idea

    I was thinking more along the lines of doing it with water in space.
  2. Salt water eletrolysis idea

    Huh alright. Out of curiosity, would low pressure water require less electricity to use electrolysis? Does water pressure affect the efficiency of the process?
  3. Gun control, which side wins?

    Actually, my posts have been addressing what you've said but I'm done now. You're too worried about your intelligence being insulted. If you respond to the section I put in explaining about how the state can't just thwart federal law, then fine. Otherwise, you're refusing to accept anything.
  4. Arming Teachers

    I don't. No. That sounds like speculation, something that we can't ever prove. It's not. And, as far as I know, I haven't argued against gun control measures in this thread. Nor had I said teachers should be armed. Again, I didn't try to defend the rights of anyone as far as I know.
  5. Salt water eletrolysis idea

    Alright. I head that the propeller on the back had to be specially made because the water pressure it made caused the water to boil, resulting in bubbles that would pop and give their position away.
  6. Gun control, which side wins?

    Again, I'm not sure you entirely understand it. There are state laws and federal laws. Let's say the federal law has no gun restrictions at all. A state, individually, can pass laws saying there are gun regulations in that particular state. The laws don't conflict with federal laws, they're simply adding to them. Unless the supreme court rules it unconstitutional, the laws stay. Now let's say the federal government outlaws automatic rifles. States can't legalize automatic rifles because the federal government has made it illegal. The state might not arrest people, but the federal government could at any time because they are breaking the federal law. Just not the state law. And if the supreme court rules that by repealing the federal law in that state that they've violated the constitution, they must repeal the law that repealed the federal law in their state.
  7. Salt water eletrolysis idea

    Really? Wouldn't that give away their position? Bubbles?
  8. Arming Teachers

    You said it.
  9. Arming Teachers

    Actually, tell most gun owners "If you have a gun in your house, it increases your risk of injury. Practice good gun safety procedures all the time." and they'd probably outright agree with you.
  10. Arming Teachers

    I disagree with Trump a lot. I think he should be impeached. Does that mean I love to see every other thread being a complaint/mocking thread about him? It's a self-enforcing cycle. First one person complains, then a second person complains about that person as well, person one adds to the second person complaints, person two adds to the first persons, on and on and on. I'm not sure anyone in this thread is trying to understand all the contradictions. As far as I know, every single one of us can see them plain as day. It doesn't accomplish anything. That's all I'm saying. It just reinforces peoples opinion that they're right without a shadow of a doubt. The right does this same thing as well, why do you think they're so convinced they're always correct? They start complaining about someone, then other people join in, and then it might as well be a contest to see who can complain about the person the most. It's not that I don't think it's the best tactic, it's that I think it's an outright harmful tactic to either side that's doing it.
  11. Arming Teachers

    I'm assuming that's sarcasm because we're usually cursed at, called bigots, called sexist racists, etc, when we say we're pro-life at a public protest/gathering.
  12. Gun control, which side wins?

    No. I didn't. Read again. You've taken the line out of context. However, I've placed it back into context so hopefully, this confusion will be cleared up. I fail to see how this adds anything to the discussion at hand.
  13. Arming Teachers

    I'm not sure good people just randomly become unhinged at any given moment, grab a gun, and go on a shooting spree. Or do you mean a stressed out person could snap at any moment, regardless if they're a good person or not?
  14. Gun control, which side wins?

    So if you were only talking about past tense, and you weren't suggesting they could do it now, then why would you bother proposing a solution to a non-existent problem in your opinion? Edit after downvotes: I did not put words in your mouth. You said it was a problem that states had the ability to thwart federal laws on safety. I pointed out that they can't, and suggested that perhaps you don't fully understand the U.S. legal system, which is okay. It's not me being a Canadian racist, it's me suggesting something that's true. Then, after I stated that states can't thwart the federal government you try to tell me you never said it. Yet, I've quoted you directly saying that we might have to remove their ability to do so. Your posts have created a contradiction with themselves. You could always explain what you said better rather than trying to assert that you didn't say it at all, and downvoting the person for pointing it out.
  15. Gun control, which side wins?

    Your own quote suggested that states could just thwart the federal government. They can't, and you very clearly stated it: Unless your opinion is that someone who breaks the law automatically thwarted the legal system even if they're caught and punished, then your quote doesn't hold up.