Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 4:11 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 4:11 pm

Yes...they are modifications, Verbal...you're being decimated....again.

No....the attraction is the purpose for which it was designed...the modification is like the condom.

The funny part about all this is that a 'Weapon designed for military use' is not mevessarily a good choice for terrorism or crime. A gun used in the military is assuming about 200 yards of distance...enemy also having guns...and body armor...and hopes to injure more than it kills because injury consumes more enemy resources than death.

So the category itself is odd to focus on. If i wanted to kill a bunch of unarmed citizens id probably prefer an mp5 over an m16..but the mp5 is more of a law enforcement gun than battlefield

FOS » 16 Oct 2020, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 4:22 pm

The funny part about all this is that a 'Weapon designed for military use' is not mevessarily a good choice for terrorism or crime. A gun used in the military is assuming about 200 yards of distance...enemy also having guns...and body armor...and hopes to injure more than it kills because injury consumes more enemy resources than death.

So the category itself is odd to focus on. If i wanted to kill a bunch of unarmed citizens id probably prefer an mp5 over an m16..but the mp5 is more of a law enforcement gun than battlefield

For once, you've offered something something inadvertently useful...

You are absolutely correct about its functionality....thereby demonstrating the complete absence of justification for civilian use...

In fact, you might even prefer to kill a bunch of people with a Ruger Mini 14....

 

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 4:26 pm

For once, you've offered something something inadvertently useful...

You are absolutely correct about its functionality....thereby demonstrating the complete absence of justification for civilian use...

In fact, you might even prefer to kill a bunch of people with a Ruger Mini 14....

Well civilians can't buy either an m16 or an mp5 without a special licence

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 4:20 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 4:20 pm

modifications to components...

which make the DESIGN compatible with the law..

how many **** times must I answer that question?

You haven't.

You lost.   But by all means continue.  Bring citations.  None or your citations say modified Avg Guy.  Dude, it is not a weakness to admit you dont know everything about everything.  And firearms related issue is not in your wheel house.  

You don't like the weapon because of appearance of who buys it.  That is obvious.  I have called you out on it, shown our argument to be wrong, and yet you continue to because you are an average guy of average intelligence, lifestyle and IQ who wants to feel superior.  GIVE it up, son.  You are not cut out for this.

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 4:20 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 4:20 pm

modifications to components...

which make the DESIGN compatible with the law..

how many **** times must I answer that question?

Just once.  Let me when you do.

anyway, this is the equivalent of taking a Ferrari, removing the engine and drivetrain, and replacing it those with the engine and drive train of a **** stained VW GTI. 

You no longer have a high performance sports car.  


 

Looks like Blackvegetable tapped out. Not a subject this loinfo should argue.

@Blackvegetable  

Huey » 16 Oct 2020, 4:56 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 4:56 pm

 Just once.  Let me when you do.

anyway, this is the equivalent of taking a Ferrari, removing the engine and drivetrain, and replacing it those with the engine and drive train of a **** stained VW GTI. 

You no longer have a high performance sports car.

Just once.  Let me when you do.

Isn't this the game that caused you to have a meltdown this morning?

Do we have to play it again?

What's in it for me?

and replacing it those with the engine and drive train of a **** stained VW GTI. 

Maybe if I didn't have so many freeloaders clinging to my tit.....

But what difference does the bird **** make if all you are doing is removing the engine and drive train?


 

Huey » 16 Oct 2020, 6:56 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 6:56 pm

Looks like Blackvegetable tapped out. Not a subject this loinfo should argue.

@Blackvegetable

I grew weary of repeating myself...and if you're obliged to reinvent language to try to contest the unambiguous language of citations, how does that make ME loinfo?
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 7:18 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 7:18 pm

I grew weary of repeating myself...and if you're obliged to reinvent language to try to contest the unambiguous language of citations, how does that make ME loinfo?

But you clearly are low info. Because you cannot give a single educated answer about why you would want to ban the ar15.

Where do you draw the line and what sort of people should have what restrictions? Why?

You don't know because you do not even seem to know the specifics of the ar15.

Like fyi the 30- 06 is a far more deadly round than the .223. But people use 30- 06 for hunt in bears or moose so banning it is never on the table. What do you think about that?

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 7:18 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 7:18 pm

I grew weary of repeating myself...and if you're obliged to reinvent language to try to contest the unambiguous language of citations, how does that make ME loinfo?

Like let's say I went nuts and wanted the sit in a clock tower and snipe random people. I would totally choose a 30- 06 over an ar15. Even if people try to hide behind cars for shelter it can shoot through the **** car and kill them.

But this is a hunting round. It was used in the military...yes...the m1 garand. But that was before military theory decided rate of fire is tactically superior to the power of the round.

But you would probably consider the m1 garand to be a friendly gun. It has wood on it.

But you would be wrong. It is far more deadly than the ar 15.

FOS » 16 Oct 2020, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 8:19 pm

But you clearly are low info. Because you cannot give a single educated answer about why you would want to ban the ar15.

Where do you draw the line and what sort of people should have what restrictions? Why?

You don't know because you do not even seem to know the specifics of the ar15.

Like fyi the 30- 06 is a far more deadly round than the .223. But people use 30- 06 for hunt in bears or moose so banning it is never on the table. What do you think about that?

But you clearly are low info. Because you cannot give a single educated answer about why you would want to ban the ar15.

I have...and I'm sick of having to repeat myself to **** morons..

are you a **** moron?

Where do you draw the line and what sort of people should have what restrictions? Why?

Do you acknowledge that there are limitations placed on the kinds of military weapons civilians may possess?


if so, why must I reinvent that wheel for you?

You don't know because you do not even seem to know the specifics of the ar15.

My argument relies on the purpose for which it was designed...I don't need to know ammosexual minutia about it.

Like fyi the 30- 06 is a far more deadly round than the .223.

we've already been here, you oblivious imbecile...

FOS » 16 Oct 2020, 8:27 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 8:27 pm

Like let's say I went nuts and wanted the sit in a clock tower and snipe random people. I would totally choose a 30- 06 over an ar15. Even if people try to hide behind cars for shelter it can shoot through the **** car and kill them.

But this is a hunting round. It was used in the military...yes...the m1 garand. But that was before military theory decided rate of fire is tactically superior to the power of the round.

But you would probably consider the m1 garand to be a friendly gun. It has wood on it.

But you would be wrong. It is far more deadly than the ar 15.

But that was before military theory decided rate of fire is tactically superior to the power of the round.

You think they did so on the basis of the advice of a Magic 8 ball?

Because of its enormous crossover potential?

But you would probably consider the m1 garand to be a friendly gun. It has wood on it.

which brings us back to dough, dough, dough, dough

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 8:53 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 8:53 pm

You think they did so on the basis of the advice of a Magic 8 ball?

Because of its enormous crossover potential?

which brings us back to dough, dough, dough, dough

Youvare absurd. You obviously have strong opinions about some vague position. When I ask you to define it you cannot. Why even speak to you?

FOS » 16 Oct 2020, 9:02 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:02 pm

Youvare absurd. You obviously have strong opinions about some vague position. When I ask you to define it you cannot. Why even speak to you?

A) I have answered the question.

B) I'm weary of trying to figure out what, if any, question you will answer
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 9:07 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:07 pm

A) I have answered the question.

B) I'm weary of trying to figure out what, if any, question you will answer

I did not see you answer any question bro.

Let me ask you this...are you in favor of banning 30- 06 hunting rifles?

FOS » 16 Oct 2020, 9:08 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:08 pm

I did not see you answer any question bro.

Let me ask you this...are you in favor of banning 30- 06 hunting rifles?

I don't care.

No.
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:21 pm

I don't care.

No.

I could easily prove to you that the 30- 06 is superior to the .223.

I mean...we could duel over that lol. (Its stupid but yeah I would win)

Do you even have a coherent position here?

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:21 pm

I don't care.

No.

FOS » 16 Oct 2020, 9:24 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:24 pm

I could easily prove to you that the 30- 06 is superior to the .223.

I mean...we could duel over that lol. (Its stupid but yeah I would win)

Do you even have a coherent position here?

What is the **** mystery..

It is a tool designed for a specific military application - one you have already described...it has no legitimate civilian use..

Because we accept the principle that not all weapons are appropriate for civilian enjoyment, we should have no reason to ignore it here.

Is that a vague concept?
 

Like..you take an ar15...give me a 30- 06 hunting rifle with a Shepard scope. I will kill you about 200 yards before you would even see me.