Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2026, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2026, 11:23 am

Huey » 19 Jul 2026, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2026, 11:05 am

I'm not.  You are using my sources.

If you are not in conflict with your citations you should be able to say the following:

"Huey, the Colt Sporter does not appear on the military list because it is on the civilian list and it was never standard issue for a personal combat weapon.

If I am in conflict with my sources, you need to show me.

 

 

Huey » 19 Jul 2026, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2026, 11:05 am

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2026, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2026, 10:57 am

Huey » 19 Jul 2026, 10:51 am » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2026, 10:51 am

Stop reframing, Runny.  Answer the questions.




 

A reference to a dispositive citation is not refraining, Tiny..


 

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2026, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2026, 10:59 am

Huey » 19 Jul 2026, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2026, 10:53 am

Now you understand how most of us feel after reading your posts, particularly about Soccer and the AR 15 civilian rifle.

But I'm not in conflict with my citations....


 

I'm not.  You are using my sources.

If you are not in conflict with your citations you should be able to say the following:

"Huey, the Colt Sporter does not appear on the military list because it is on the civilian list and it was never standard issue for a personal combat weapon.

 

This is you being shown you are in conflict with the sources you are using.  The colt shorter is not on the military list.  It was never combat issue.  That is why it is on the civilian list because it was not designed for combat.

Even after I answered your family and design question for the umpteenth time you still run like a puss from answering mine.  This should put to rest who runs from questions and who doesn't.

STFU, take you L, and move on.