Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 10:24 am

Writes itself.

Still no content. Just words. Insults, innuendo, narrative crafting. No content. Stories. All you have

FOS » 17 Oct 2020, 10:30 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 10:30 am

Still no content. Just words. Insults, innuendo, narrative crafting. No content. Stories. All you have

And questions.  Don’t forget questions, his fave diversion.  That is why he is called Askhole.

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 10:24 am

Writes itself.

Like look. I could literally argue your own case better than you.

The wound caused by a tumbling .223 tends to be more grievous than other rounds. That is an accurate statement. Injury from an ar15 tends to be more nasty.

You could focus on that if you were capable of any tangible argument. But you really arent.

FOS » 17 Oct 2020, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 10:23 am

It doesn't matter if you used that exact phrase. This is just obviously what argument you are attempting to allude to. Because the ar15 is based on the m16 it must be too evil a weapon for civilians.

But the changes to the gun are obvioisly specifically intended to make it less deadly. You aren't even addressing that.

Just making up stories again.

Why must I answer in the first, and often 2nd and 3rd, instance and then argue your interpretation of what you would have preferred I said?

post the original proposition to which Dwarf, and now his handmaid, has taken such offense..

FOS » 17 Oct 2020, 11:00 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:00 am

Like look. I could literally argue your own case better than you.

The wound caused by a tumbling .223 tends to be more grievous than other rounds. That is an accurate statement. Injury from an ar15 tends to be more nasty.

You could focus on that if you were capable of any tangible argument. But you really arent.

You mean the modifications can't overcome the purpose for which it was designed?


That's brilliant...thanks for sharing.

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:01 am

Why must I answer in the first, and often 2nd and 3rd, instance and then argue your interpretation of what you would have preferred I said?

post the original proposition to which Dwarf, and now his handmaid, has taken such offense..

Could you explain why the AR 15 Semi automatic rifle is not issued to US combat troops has the standard issue assault rifle?

Hint, the answer is in the question.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 10:33 am

And questions.  Don’t forget questions, his fave diversion.  That is why he is called Askhole.

Is that true for anyone who asks questions, yappy?

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am

Could you explain why the AR 15 Semi automatic rifle is not issued to US combat troops has the standard issue assault rifle?

Hint, the answer is in the question.

Why must I answer in the first, and often 2nd and 3rd, instance?

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am

You mean the modifications can't overcome the purpose for which it was designed?

That's brilliant...thanks for sharing.

Most guns are designed to kill.  That is not your argument.  You argument is that the AR 15 Semi automatic sports rifle was designed for the battlefield.  As this thread shows it was not.

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am

You mean the modifications can't overcome the purpose for which it was designed?

That's brilliant...thanks for sharing.

You didn't say anything about the round. You said nothing tangible. I finally just had to give you something to demonstrate how an actual debate looks like. You aren't capable.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am

Could you explain why the AR 15 Semi automatic rifle is not issued to US combat troops has the standard issue assault rifle?

Hint, the answer is in the question.

Why must I answer in the first, and often 2nd and 3rd, instance, Askhole?

 
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am

Is that true for anyone who asks questions, yappy?

Only those like you who avoid answering questions by asking them OR avoid making a point.

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:05 am

Why must I answer in the first, and often 2nd and 3rd, instance, Askhole?

Because you have to answer it:

Could you explain why the AR 15 Semi automatic rifle is not issued to US combat troops as the standard issue assault rifle?

Hint, the answer is in the question.
 

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:06 am

Because you have to answer it:

Could you explain why the AR 15 Semi automatic rifle is not issued to US combat troops as the standard issue assault rifle?

Hint, the answer is in the question.

Read the question again.
 

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:05 am

Only those like you who avoid answering questions by asking them OR avoid making a point.

What's the point of you asking the same pointless question, repeatedly, 37X?

FOS » 17 Oct 2020, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:04 am

You didn't say anything about the round. You said nothing tangible. I finally just had to give you something to demonstrate how an actual debate looks like. You aren't capable.

In the retelling, I never do...

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

16 Oct 2020, 1:57 pm

Huey » 16 Oct 2020, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 1:51 pm

Again, my henry 45 repeating rifle was designed specifically for combat.  You want that banned as well?

So although none of the weapons you want banned fit the category of "designed for the battlefield" you want them banned because of broad appeal.  Now that is just plain stupid.

 my henry 45 repeating rifle was designed specifically for combat. 

You ran from this before...

For what conflict was the henry 45 designed?

So although none of the weapons you want banned fit the category of "designed for the battlefield"

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...

 

 

FOS » 17 Oct 2020, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:04 am

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:03 am

You mean the modifications can't overcome the purpose for which it was designed?

That's brilliant...thanks for sharing.

You didn't say anything about the round. You said nothing tangible. I finally just had to give you something to demonstrate how an actual debate looks like. You aren't capable.

 

 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:07 am

What's the point of you asking the same pointless question, repeatedly, 37X?

It is not a pointless question Mr 800.  Your argument is the AR 15 semi automatic is a weapon designed for the battlefield and should be banned.  We have established that weapons in the context of the thread have been banned or so heavily restricted most can't get one.  We have established that the major pieces that make a weapon a combat assault weapon  are redesigned to make it not a combat weapon.  That is no longer a point of contention.  

With that said if you claim it is a weapon for the battlefield you should be able to tell us why the US Government did not Purchase a Semi Automatic weapon as it's primary assault weapon for the troops.  Why haven't they?

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:10 am

But the ar15 is not even an assault rifle. You obviously had no idea about the specifics of this round. I had to provide that for you.

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:10 am

 

What is your point with that?  It does not answer the question as to why the AR 15 Semi automatic rifle is not issued to US combat troops as the standard issue assault rifle?