Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 9:29 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:29 pm

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?

That's ****. I would never give an ar15 to military personell. It is not used by anyone in any military. You are just wrong.

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 9:29 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:29 pm

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?

Now say you were part ofan entire platoon who were armed with m16s. (Not an ar15). Then i could certainly kill one of you with a 30- 06. But the rest of you could lay suppressing fire and force me to take cover. You would probably ultimately win the confrontation. But I could kill one of you...

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 9:29 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:29 pm

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?

If instead your retarded platoon was armed with ar15s I could at least kill 3 of you. With just a 30- 06 hunting rifle. No problem.

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 1:57 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 1:57 pm

You ran from this before...

For what conflict was the henry 45 designed?

A sabre was designed for "battle".....I don't have an issue with collectors, but I draw the line at carry, concealed or otherwise...

an assault weapon, as one of its principal features, is designed to kill in volume and to leave the wounded requiring a lot of assets to repair.

This has no civilian application. Accordingly, a weapon designed for such satisfies no legitimate civilian purpose...

Now, whether one agrees or not with this position, one cannot mistake it for anything except a clear and concise position statement.

I would like to see more of this from you, young man - from ALL of you young men.

FOS » 16 Oct 2020, 9:54 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:54 pm

If instead your retarded platoon was armed with ar15s I could at least kill 3 of you. With just a 30- 06 hunting rifle. No problem.

I can killl EVERYONE with a knife because I don't have to reload.

If you don't have a gun and aren't very fast.

Cannonpointer » 17 Oct 2020, 12:08 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 12:08 am

I can killl EVERYONE with a knife because I don't have to reload.

If you don't have a gun and aren't very fast.

There are tricks for a person carrying a gun to beat a guy carrying a knife. For example fall to the ground. Increases distance and a person with a knife has a lot longer length to pass to make a fatal injury.

It works 99% of the time.

RickyTavy » 17 Oct 2020, 12:35 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 12:35 am

Wow.  Master race genius asserts there are "tricks" a guy with a gun can use to defeat a guy with a knife.  Distance is the secret, doncha know.  We see here how the "blonde" aspect of the master race theory causes a problem.

Nazis just aren't what they used to be.

Jew.

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?

You added words to citations.  

But anyone with just a bit of intelligence can see that you are quite ignorant of topic and incapable of admitting you are wrong.
 

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 9:29 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:29 pm

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?

If it was a tool designed for military use how come the military did not use it in combat?

Carry on.  

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 7:59 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 7:59 am

If it was a tool designed for military use how come the military did not use it in combat?

Carry on.

They did...that is the reason you have an M16 to modify...

**** imbecile.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 7:56 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 7:56 am

You added words to citations.  

But anyone with just a bit of intelligence can see that you are quite ignorant of topic and incapable of admitting you are wrong.

No, you lying little ****...I did not..

You are arguing with your own citations.
 
 

FOS » 16 Oct 2020, 9:36 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 9:36 pm

That's ****. I would never give an ar15 to military personell. It is not used by anyone in any military. You are just wrong.

Design...

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Don't prattle...for once, answer the question.
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 8:11 am

Design...

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Don't prattle...for once, answer the question.

What about design? What is your point?

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 8:02 am

They did...that is the reason you have an M16 to modify...

**** imbecile.

The AR 15 Semi automatic was never issued as a weapon used in combat.  Because it was designed for civilian use.  It is a look a like.  The weapons in this context that are designed for combat are either already banned or highly restricted and cost a hell of a lot of money.

Remember, they did not take those parts out and replace them.  They had to rebuild a new weapon.  The parts inside are what makes it a combat weapon or not.

Nod when you understand.

 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 8:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 8:03 am

No, you lying little ****...I did not..

You are arguing with your own citations.

Where in my citation does the mower modify appear Meltdown Mary?  Continuing down this road proves you are ignorant of the topic and have an agenda based on those you stereotype and claim are attracted to it.  Did you know their are lefties on this board who own them or are wishing to own them?  Some for home defense, some for hunting.  But don’t let that stand in the way of your agenda.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 8:18 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 8:18 am

Where in my citation does the mower modify appear Meltdown Mary?  Continuing down this road proves you are ignorant of the topic and have an agenda based on those you stereotype and claim are attracted to it.  Did you know their are lefties on this board who own them or are wishing to own them?  Some for home defense, some for hunting.  But don’t let that stand in the way of your agenda.

Stream of Dwarfishness..


 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 8:39 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 8:39 am

Stream of Dwarfishness..

Hi Mary. 

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 8:40 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 8:40 am

Hi Mary.

You about to melt down again?

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 8:47 am

You about to melt down again?

I haven’t  melted down yet.  You ready to explain why a weapon you claim is designed for the battlefield, a semi automatic, is not issued to the troops for combat?  

I can answer.  Because it was designed for civilians.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 8:54 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 8:54 am

I haven’t  melted down yet.  You ready to explain why a weapon you claim is designed for the battlefield, a semi automatic, is not issued to the troops for combat?  

I can answer.  Because it was designed for civilians.

AR 15 is a semi automatic variant of which weapon?