Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 7:26 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:26 am

An M16...


What the **** does an M16 have to do with approving a sporting rifle with a "unique design specifically developed for the civilian market"?
 


 

That's not a point.  And stop editing my answers.

I accept your surrender.  
 
 

Huey » 18 Aug 2026, 6:57 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 6:57 am

There was a disabled M 16 and a Sporter.

Now make your **** point without a question.

Check your sig.

Post the rule.

Huey » 18 Aug 2026, 7:28 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:28 am

That's not a point.  And stop editing my answers.

I accept your surrender.

It certainly is THE point.

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 7:23 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:23 am

Do you know about this ATF letter to which Tiny is making subtle reference?

  I couldn't care less about any letter.
I'm going on the defintion put forth by the military what constitutes an assault rifle which is cut and dried.
 Your definition of an assault rifle is meaningless.

  

 

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 7:29 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:29 am

It certainly is THE point.

 

What is the point.  Give me your assertion so there is no confusion or in your case, wiggle room.  

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 7:21 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:21 am

It is about the facts.


 

  And the fact is that AR 15s aren't assault rifles,they're semi auto rifles that look like one.
M16s are assault rifles because they're capable of full auto fire.
  
 

Huey » 18 Aug 2026, 7:32 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:32 am

What is the point.  Give me your assertion so there is no confusion or in your case, wiggle room.

What the **** does an M16 have to do with approving a sporting rifle with a "unique design specifically developed for the civilian market"?

The answer is "Nothing, Lord Vegetable"

But it's there....a middle finger directed at the fiction that the semi auto variant is a "unique design"..

 

Squatchman » 18 Aug 2026, 7:34 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:34 am

  And the fact is that AR 15s 

No....that's a theological debate....the design preceded it by nearly 2 decades...

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 7:36 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:36 am

The answer is "Nothing, Lord Vegetable"

But it's there....a middle finger directed at the fiction that the semi auto variant is a "unique design"..

 

 

“Bingo!” Savage replied. “They sent an ‘Unserviceable’ M16 so ATF could compare it and the new rifle and were told it was still considered an MG even if unserviceable since it was not properly destroyed. I laughed when Colt was told ‘file a Form 2’ in order to get it back… Wonder if it is still in National Firearms Collection?”“In 1968 firearms industry terminology ‘automatic rifle’ means the same as ‘auto-loading rifle,’ i.e., a rifle that loads itself for the next shot,” he recalled. “Even in 1979-1980 when I took my hunters’ safety course the State of Michigan used the two terms interchangeably throughout the course.”

Huey » 18 Aug 2026, 7:40 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:40 am

“Bingo!” Savage replied. “They sent an ‘Unserviceable’ M16 so ATF could compare it and the new rifle and were told it was still considered an MG even if unserviceable since it was not properly destroyed. I laughed when Colt was told ‘file a Form 2’ in order to get it back… Wonder if it is still in National Firearms Collection?”“In 1968 firearms industry terminology ‘automatic rifle’ means the same as ‘auto-loading rifle,’ i.e., a rifle that loads itself for the next shot,” he recalled. “Even in 1979-1980 when I took my hunters’ safety course the State of Michigan used the two terms interchangeably throughout the course.”

What could an M16 possibly have to do with a weapon designed exclusively for the civilian market?

Nothing...

But if the applicant is bringing a design modified so as not to be categorized a "machine gun" and not "readily convertible" into one, it might be expected to provide the referent...which is what happened.

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 7:49 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:49 am

What could an M16 possibly have to do with a weapon designed exclusively for the civilian market?

Nothing...

But if the applicant is bringing a design modified so as not to be categorized a "machine gun" and not "readily convertible" into one, it might be expected to provide the referent...which is what happened.

 

Since the exteriors of the weapons are similar they did it to show the DESIGN changes inside the lower receiver, bolt, sear, trigger, etc that made it not a machine gun (assault rifle).

Remember, the letter says DESIGN, not modified.

You are done.




 

Huey » 18 Aug 2026, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 8:04 am

Since the exteriors of the weapons are similar

Don't be **** stupid 

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 8:26 am

Don't be **** stupid 

 

Since the exteriors of the weapons are similar they did it to show the DESIGN changes inside the lower receiver, bolt, sear, trigger, etc that made it not a machine gun (assault rifle).

Remember, the letter says DESIGN, not modified.

You are done.


 

Huey » 18 Aug 2026, 8:33 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 8:33 am

Since the exteriors of the weapons are similar 

Don't be **** stupid..

A machine gun, as defined in the NFA, is "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." The NFA term machine gun refers to all firearms capable of full automatic fire and includes true machine guns, submachine guns, and machine pistols. The frame or receiver of a machine gun, and any combination of parts intended to make a machine gun, is legally defined as a machine gun.[8]

Nothing about "appearance"


 

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 8:47 am

Don't be **** stupid..

A machine gun, as defined in the NFA, is "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." The NFA term machine gun refers to all firearms capable of full automatic fire and includes true machine guns, submachine guns, and machine pistols. The frame or receiver of a machine gun, and any combination of parts intended to make a machine gun, is legally defined as a machine gun.[8]

Nothing about "appearance"


 

 

The Colt sporter could not be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

That is the crux of the matter.
 

Squatchman » 18 Aug 2026, 6:09 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 6:09 am

  You lost with your first post in this thread
when you asserted that AR 15s are assault rifles even after the definition was posted.
  Basically you're saying you know more about what an assault rifle is than the military. You've been proven wrong over and over but still can't accept the fact that the AR 15 isn't an assault rifle. It isn't even an "assault weapon",that term is used as a political fear mongering talking point by gun control advocates because even they know it isn't an assault rifle and would get their asses handed to them in court for asserting it is.

I’ve noticed recently when the media reports on a shooting using one of these weapons, they refer to it as “an AR style rifle”…

a liability issue?

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 6:16 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 6:16 am

Please stop.

This isn't about taxonomy.

The German original is

Sturmgewehr.....

Loosely

"Assault rifle"

That is what the AR-15 was DESIGNED for.

And it was designed only once, though it has been broadly modified.

to which it didn’t even qualify, per the military…right?

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 7:04 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 7:04 am

Because that feature was "removed" does not make the modified result a melonballer.

which “ feature”?
 

Huey » 18 Aug 2026, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 8:52 am

The Colt sporter could not be readily 

Which Colt had to demonstrate to ATF by including the original...

But we know it COULD be converted.

Blackvegetable » 18 Aug 2026, 9:03 am » wrote: ↑

18 Aug 2026, 9:03 am

Which Colt had to demonstrate to ATF by including the original...

But we know it COULD be converted.

 

Not READILY.  Remember, words have meaning.  Take your issues to the ATF.  They say you are lying.