Yes it is!

[quote](°ζ ͜ °)[/quote]

One of my roommates left his projectile vomit stains on the toilet for a couple days. Guess who wound up cleaning it?[/quote]

I probably shouldn't have copied pasted a list of anime that focus on boobs...I swear it was for science.

[b] [/b]

[quote]This thread has been made before, but why not another? Paste whatever you have copied. [quote]... ..... What the...[/quote][/quote] ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)[

http://marybrowns.com/menu/

Don't know what it is

[url=http://example.com]http://ifunny.mobi/i/NHBhstMB2link[/url]

Oh my god I'm watching mr cuddles hump my sisters stuffed animal

Nothing coming up with ctrl+v.

[b] [/b]

TSM48JKSM7S8FB [spoiler]what the hell was that?[/spoiler]

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I'm scared because I don't remember what it is http://youtu.be/NARxgXEdlzs

[i] [/i]

Lol :3

GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT

AR-15>AK Always -Much more accurate. I've shot more ARs than I can count and almost every one will shoot an inch or less group at 100 yards. Every AK I've shot will get no better than a three inch group at 100 yards. -Faster rate of fire. A full auto AR platform will get around 850 rpm, AKs will get around 500-600. -Despite what everyone says, the 5.56x45 is more powerful than the 7.62x39. The facts and history back it up. A 63gr 5.56 will get around 3,100 fps. A 123gr 7.62 will get around 2,396 fps. There is some trade off here as the AK does have marginally more stopping power with the heavier bullet combined with the tumbling effect. However the 5.56 will counter this trade off with the same tumbling effect and the higher velocity which means it can go to farther distances. In the 1960s the U.S. Army did a test comparing the M16, the M14, and the AK-47. One test was to penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards. The M14 and M16 passed with flying colors, the AK-47 failed. The Soviets themselves copied the 5.56x45 by making their own round known as the 5.45x39 which performs much better than the old 7.62. -The argument that the AK-47 is simpler to use is an absolute lie. To reload the AK, all you have to do is rock in the magazine and rack the bolt. The AR is pretty simple too, just push in the magazine and push a little button on the left side of the receiver. Seems just as simple to me. Now for the big argument. -The AK is in fact not more reliable than the AR. Now before you get all pissy and walk away, hear me out. The horror stories of soldiers dying in Vietnam because their M16s jammed did actually happen. BUT. These were the experimental XM16E1 rifles. They had no forward assist, no chrome lining, and were supposedly able to go on forever without being cleaned. The U.S. military called all of them back and sent out a much better version called the M16A1. This had forward assist, chrome lining, all of that. Since then, there has NEVER been a significant event of people dying because their M16/M4s jammed. In fact, I think around 2005-2006 there was a report of a massive firefight in a providence in Afghanistan notorious for the sticky sand which would adhere to rifles. They reported firing more than 1000 rounds of ammunition and only one jam occurred which was cleared by racking the bolt. The AKs are the badass, indestructible rifle that can be slung through water, shit, mud, blood, sand, you name it, and still fire. I will give this to the Russian and the many American AKs, but the problem with this is that many AKs are made by crappy knock-off companies that have next to no manufacturing tolerances. It's like how out of an entire fanbase, there's one asshole, but backwards. -The Wood/Steel construction on the AK is not stronger. The AR is made of aircraft grade aluminum and extremely high impact polymer. Aircraft undergo many more stresses in air than a rifle goes through in a soldiers hands, so it would be a pretty good idea to use the same metals, right? AR>>AK Anytime. Anywhere. Period. Countries that can afford the AR, use it. Countries that can't, use the AK.