Liberal Forum

Huey » 17 Aug 2026, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:02 pm

In the article you cherry picked that citation from 

that isn't "cherry picked"..

They are the opening sentences...which tell you exactly what the article is about.

Huey » 17 Aug 2026, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:00 pm

THere is no lie in that post.  You are running from the challenge because you know you will lose.

A) I've addressed them.

B) I  win because words mean what they say.
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 1:54 pm

Why are you lying?

Oh, yeah...

You always lie.

Never mind.

 

Dum Dum, the sporter is either on the military list or it isn't.  It isn't. That is no a lie.

Dum Dum, the Sporter was standard issue for the military or it wasn't. It wasn't.  No lie

Dum Dum, the ATF either classifies the sporter as a machine gun (assault rifle) or it doesn't.  The ATF doesn't. No lie.

I understand why you are afraid to address those points. No diversionary questions on your end can avoid those objective facts.  

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 2:15 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:15 pm

A) I've addressed them.

B) I  win because words mean what they say.
 

 

A)  No, you haven't.  If you did you would have said the Sporter appears on the civilian list and was NEVER standard combat issue because it is not an assault weapon.

B)  Yes, they do.  Remember, your citation says ORIGINAL DESIGN.  There are two lists with MULTIPLE Designs.  

Game over

 

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:12 pm

that isn't "cherry picked"..

They are the opening sentences...which tell you exactly what the article is about.

 

Yes, the multiple designs of military weapons and the different designs of civilian weapons.  You need to scroll beyond the first sentence.

NOBODY on this forum agrees with you.  NOBODY.

Huey » 17 Aug 2026, 2:17 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:17 pm

Dum Dum, the sporter is either on the military list or it isn't.  It isn't. That is no a lie.


 

That's irrelevant...

It is listed as a variant.

Huey » 17 Aug 2026, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:20 pm

Yes, the multiple designs of military weapons and the different designs of civilian weapons.  

How many families?

How many designs?

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:45 pm

How many families?

How many designs?

 

Loser, that has been answered on this thread.  You lost.

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:44 pm

That's irrelevant...

It is listed as a variant.

 

Not playing the edit the facts game with you.  Yo called me a liar.  Below are all true facts.  

Dum Dum, the sporter is either on the military list or it isn't.  It isn't. That is no a lie.

Dum Dum, the Sporter was standard issue for the military or it wasn't. It wasn't.  No lie

Dum Dum, the ATF either classifies the sporter as a machine gun (assault rifle) or it doesn't.  The ATF doesn't. No lie.

I understand why you are afraid to address those points. No diversionary questions on your end can avoid those objective facts.  

Huey » 17 Aug 2026, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:46 pm

Loser, that has been answered on this thread.  You lost.

Run, loser..

Take this L with you.
 

Huey » 17 Aug 2026, 2:48 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:48 pm

Not playing the 

I don't read irrelevant crap.

Keep it relevant. 

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 2:49 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:49 pm

I don't read irrelevant crap.

Keep it relevant. 

 

I don't give a **** if you read it.  But if you did you would learn something.  Stop removing verifiable facts from posts.  That is a ****** move.  
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 2:48 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:48 pm

Run, loser..

Take this L with you.
 

 

Yo took the L a long time ago when you ran from the challenge. 

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 2:48 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:48 pm

Run, loser..

Take this L with you.
 

 

The original classification letter says you are lying:

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians
https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... civilians/

Scroll down to the embedded PDF for the actual decision.
 

Anyway, the basic premise of the thread has been proven correct. An AR style firearm is no an Assault Rifle according to the military and government.
 

Huey » 17 Aug 2026, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 2:54 pm

The original classification letter says you are lying:


 

Tiny,

That was written long after Design...

And the letter AGAIN debunks your thesis.

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 3:27 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 3:27 pm

Tiny,

That was written long after Design...

And the letter AGAIN debunks your thesis.

 

No it doesn't.  You talk a lot but you bring very few facts.  Bring it on.
 

Huey » 17 Aug 2026, 3:30 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 3:30 pm

No it doesn't.  You talk a lot but you bring very few facts.  Bring it on.

The letter references another rifle.

To what rifle does it refer?

Blackvegetable » 17 Aug 2026, 3:33 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 3:33 pm

Huey » 17 Aug 2026, 3:30 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Aug 2026, 3:30 pm

No it doesn't.  You talk a lot but you bring very few facts.  Bring it on.

The letter references another rifle.

To what rifle does it refer?

 

Post exactly what you are referencing.  You have proven over time yd read well or understand info.   And you are the king of the bait and switch.  Right now you got nothing.  

Huey » 18 Aug 2026, 5:03 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 5:03 am

Post exactly what you are referencing.  

The ball's still in your court.

You know what's in that letter.