Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 17 Oct 2020, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:47 am

He's plainly told you that he wants controls on both - and why.

Agree or disagree, his opinion is manifest, and he has a right to it.

His knowledge of the minutia impinges on his right to that opinion not a whit.

You should just call him a *** dicker. You'll feel better, and you'll almost certainly be correct.

His reasoning is based on propaganda that has been debunked.  I like watching him embarrass himself by using propaganda.  And look at the bright side.  It keeps him from chasing me all over the forum and disrupting other's threads.  Consider it a public service.  Don't you think I knew how this would go when I started the thread?  

Cannonpointer » 17 Oct 2020, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:49 am

To carry forward your analogy, his oint is that he wants more controls on both..

To be honest with you he does not want more controls.  He wants the AR 15 banned.  

FOS » 17 Oct 2020, 11:48 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:48 am

There is a reason you can buy an ar15 but not an m16. Kinda like it is legal to buy fireworks but not dynamite

' But they are both designed to explode! '

You have no point.

Give everyone a break from your assertions for a while

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:50 am

His reasoning is based on propaganda that has been debunked.  I like watching him embarrass himself by using propaganda.  And look at the bright side.  It keeps him from chasing me all over the forum and disrupting other's threads.  Consider it a public service.  Don't you think I knew how this would go when I started the thread?

Without a whole lot of yapping, post the system of which the AR15 is a variant...

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:56 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:56 am

Without a whole lot of yapping, post the system of which the AR15 is a variant...

Already answered.  Not sure how it is a variant of the M16 when the AR semi auto was produced and marketed first:

Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the "Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle" began on Jan 2, 1964. The M16 wasn't issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn't standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn't officially replace the M14 until 1969. Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

Your source further says that he's shocked to "see this weapon any place other than the battlefield", and suggests that Stoner would have been as well. Colt was literally selling the rifle to the civilian market at the same time that they were testing and refining the rifle with the military in an attempt to land a contract. I don't understand how one could have been working at Colt and not have known this, particularly with so many civilian sales by 1967. It would have been something like 7 rifles sold on the civilian market per day that year, at least.

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/ ... 15/545660/

 

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:50 am

His reasoning is based on propaganda that has been debunked.  I like watching him embarrass himself by using propaganda.  And look at the bright side.  It keeps him from chasing me all over the forum and disrupting other's threads.  Consider it a public service.  Don't you think I knew how this would go when I started the thread?

You are a great American, sir.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:51 am

To be honest with you he does not want more controls.  He wants the AR 15 banned.

That, and gender definitions - yes.

He's a bad actor all around. He hates apple pie - and Mama.

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 11:55 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:55 am

Give everyone a break from your assertions for a while

I even gave you an example of what an actual point is. Do you see how my point about the injury from a .223 is actually something tangible? You see the difference between that and this vague useless nonsense you are talking about? I can't even believe this conversation is ongoing. You are literally incapable of contributing anything.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:51 am

To be honest with you he does not want more controls.  He wants the AR 15 banned.

An interesting side point. I had a friend who was a public attorney.

One of his clients, a middle class law abiding citizen, was threatened with, if I recall, 10 years in prison because his "assault rifle" was half an inch below the legal limit.

He had two crimes in his past, a bar fight when he was in his early 20's and a drug crime so on paper he was a three-time felon.

Since then he worked and lived his life without breaking any laws, not at all uncommon a story for many Americans with something in their past or who got away with something when they were young and stupid.

The prosecutor didn't care in the slightest what actual fairness was. She wanted to throw the book at him to pad her record.

My friend managed to get him off.

This is the kind of lunatic law that Beltway hacks like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden pass with zero concern for the consequence to actual people.
 
 

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 11:58 am

Already answered.  Not sure how it is a variant of the M16 when the AR semi auto was produced and marketed first:

Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the "Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle" began on Jan 2, 1964. The M16 wasn't issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn't standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn't officially replace the M14 until 1969. Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

Your source further says that he's shocked to "see this weapon any place other than the battlefield", and suggests that Stoner would have been as well. Colt was literally selling the rifle to the civilian market at the same time that they were testing and refining the rifle with the military in an attempt to land a contract. I don't understand how one could have been working at Colt and not have known this, particularly with so many civilian sales by 1967. It would have been something like 7 rifles sold on the civilian market per day that year, at least.

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/ ... 15/545660/

Another rabbit hole..

Of what relevance is that to DESIGN?


Why would a weapon DESIGNED for civilian use need to be approved by BATF?
 

Termin8tor » 17 Oct 2020, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 12:03 pm

An interesting side point. I had a friend who was a public attorney.

One of his clients, a middle class law abiding citizen, was threatened with, if I recall, 10 years in prison because his "assault rifle" was half an inch below the legal limit.

He had two crimes in his past, a bar fight when he was in his early 20's and a drug crime so on paper he was a three-time felon.

Since then he worked and lived his life without breaking any laws, not at all uncommon a story for many Americans with something in their past or who got away with something when they were young and stupid.

The prosecutor didn't care in the slightest what actual fairness was. She wanted to throw the book at him to pad her record.

My friend managed to get him off.

This is the kind of lunatic law that Beltway hacks like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden pass with zero concern for the consequence to actual people.

The stories are endless.
 

FOS » 17 Oct 2020, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 12:02 pm

I even gave you an example of what an actual point is. Do you see how my point about the injury from a .223 is actually something tangible? You see the difference between that and this vague useless nonsense you are talking about? I can't even believe this conversation is ongoing. You are literally incapable of contributing anything.

No...I meant it..


 

Termin8tor » 17 Oct 2020, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 12:03 pm

An interesting side point. I had a friend who was a public attorney.

One of his clients, a middle class law abiding citizen, was threatened with, if I recall, 10 years in prison because his "assault rifle" was half an inch below the legal limit.

He had two crimes in his past, a bar fight when he was in his early 20's and a drug crime so on paper he was a three-time felon.

Since then he worked and lived his life without breaking any laws, not at all uncommon a story for many Americans with something in their past or who got away with something when they were young and stupid.

The prosecutor didn't care in the slightest what actual fairness was. She wanted to throw the book at him to pad her record.

My friend managed to get him off.

This is the kind of lunatic law that Beltway hacks like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden pass with zero concern for the consequence to actual people.

It would be his 3rd felony conviction..

These laws require both a severe violent felony and two other previous convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison.[5][6] The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those convicted of more than two serious crimes.[2]


The STUPID law was the one that criminalized his drug use.

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 12:04 pm

Another rabbit hole..

Of what relevance is that to DESIGN?

Why would a weapon DESIGNED for civilian use need to be approved by BATF?

All NEW weapons designs have to thru ATF.  Duh. You to have to get approved to ensure they do not fall under the NFA of 1934.
 

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 12:24 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 12:24 pm

All NEW weapons designs have to thru ATF.  Duh. You to have to get approved to ensure they do not fall under the NFA of 1934.

List of Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle variants
This article describes the many variations of the Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle family of weapons produced by Colt's Manufacturing Company. Weapons patterned on the original ArmaLite AR-15 design have been produced by numerous manufacturers and have been used by nations around the world, some of which created their own variations. The tables here are split in a variety of categories, and provide an overview of different subtypes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... e_variants


​​​​​
Does the Sporter show up on this list?
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 1:03 pm

List of Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle variants
This article describes the many variations of the Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle family of weapons produced by Colt's Manufacturing Company. Weapons patterned on the original ArmaLite AR-15 design have been produced by numerous manufacturers and have been used by nations around the world, some of which created their own variations. The tables here are split in a variety of categories, and provide an overview of different subtypes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... e_variants

​​​​​
Does the Sporter show up on this list?

Dude I am at the point you can use whatever word you like.  You have two questions to answer:

1.  I the AR 15 semi auto rifle was designed for the battlefield (it wasn’t) why wasn’t it issued To US Combat troops?  Especially since it was mass produced BEFORE the M 16?  How long you gonna run from that question?

2.  What capabilities and functions does the AR 15 Semi auto rifle share with the M 16?

Considering the AR 15 Semi auto was produced first.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 12:24 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 12:24 pm

All NEW weapons designs have to thru ATF.  Duh. You to have to get approved to ensure they do not fall under the NFA of 1934.

@Blackvegetable  

For the record that Is when the Government said the AR 15 Sporter WAS NOT a battlefield weapon.  Run from that also coward.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 1:43 pm

Dude I am at the point you can use whatever word you like.  You have two questions to answer:

1.  I the AR 15 semi auto rifle was designed for the battlefield (it wasn’t) why wasn’t it issued To US Combat troops?  Especially since it was mass produced BEFORE the M 16?  How long you gonna run from that question?

2.  What capabilities and functions does the AR 15 Semi auto rifle share with the M 16?

Considering the AR 15 Semi auto was produced first.

I'm not addressing idiocies or diversions, Dwarf...

There is the citation....again.

Huey » 17 Oct 2020, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 1:44 pm

@Blackvegetable  

For the record that Is when the Government said the AR 15 Sporter WAS NOT a battlefield weapon.  Run from that also coward.

No one said the AR 15 Sporter was.

Blackvegetable » 17 Oct 2020, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 1:45 pm

I'm not addressing idiocies or diversions, Dwarf...

There is the citation....again.

Dude, those questions could prove your point.  You are too **** to honestly answer them.  You arrogance and fear of being wrong prevents you from actually answering the questions. 

Now answer the questions or leave with your head between your legs.  If the AR 15 sporter was a battlefield field weapon the BATF would have classified it as such under the NFA of 1934.  And considering the AR 15 was mass produced BEFORE  the M 16 you would think this murderous battlefield weapon would have been issued to the troops.

So idiot, it is not a combat assault rifle.  Never was and was not designed as such.

That shoots down your reasoning.