Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 22 Apr 2021, 3:10 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 3:10 pm

Dwarf,

We have established that the Colt AR 15 style is a semiauto variant of the M16..

You can stop this now.

We also know dammned well what I say about the reason it sells is true...this has NOTHING to do with fear of its look.

Nod.

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 3:16 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 3:16 pm

Ok. But please tell us, using your words, what had to be modified.  You ban that 50 year old weapon. 

But today's semi automatics are not.  No need to ban them.  They are not designed for the battlefield.  What else you got?

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...

 

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...

 

Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2020, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 1:49 pm

Huey » 16 Oct 2020, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Oct 2020, 1:46 pm

Why did you remove exactly what they changed?  Lying a lil bit?  They changed the entire inner workings which is a redesign.  You want it banned because it looks scary.  The weapons that you claim are ok have the exact same function as the one's you want banned.  An unnatural fear based on ignorance.

Do you know what those parts do?  You better get googling.

Because it doesn't matter in the context of the purpose of its design and development...or its broad appeal to the Subnormal.

 

 

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

16 Oct 2020, 4:26 pm

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 » 17 Oct 2020, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Oct 2020, 12:04 pm

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?
 

 

Blackvegetable » 18 Oct 2020, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

18 Oct 2020, 8:13 am

Huey » 18 Oct 2020, 8:08 am » wrote: ↑

18 Oct 2020, 8:08 am

Your claim is it is a variant of rifle designed for the battlefield and should be banned although combat weapons themselves are  already banned or so heavily restricted most people can’t get one.

The BATF says it is not a combat weapon.  You refuse to tell us what capabilities it shares with the M16 that make it a combat weapon.  And refuse to tell us why this weapon was never standard combat issue considering it was mass produced BEFORE the M16.  Since you refuse, or more aptly can’t, to give those answers we are left with this:

the appeal is to Rambocosplayers for its look

Since the AR 15 does not share any capabilities or internal parts you want it banned based on appearance.

Your claim is it is a variant of rifle designed for the battlefield

That is not a claim, Dwarf..

That is a demonstrated fact..

Learn the difference..

 

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:31 am

Ooops.

So  there is  your argument.

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:28 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:28 am

Two things.

More of you arguing about the battlefield.

All weapons had to be approved by the BATF.​​​​​​​

Blackvegetable » 01 Jul 2022, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:35 am

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:31 am

Ooops.

So  there is  your argument.

Yes....it remains as true to all citations on the topic as it was when I first said it.

Acknowledge it.

 

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:25 am

Here you are harping on its appeal.

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:38 am

The Colt AR 15 was not designed for the Battlefield.

Acknowledge it.

Blackvegetable » 01 Jul 2022, 10:36 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:36 am

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:28 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:28 am

Two things.

More of you arguing about the battlefield.

All weapons had to be approved by the BATF.

Only if they are to be made available to civilians...

 

Blackvegetable » 01 Jul 2022, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:38 am

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:25 am

Here you are harping on its appeal.

Another perfectly accurate statement..

Amazing how I do that.

 

Blackvegetable » 01 Jul 2022, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:40 am

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:38 am

The Colt AR 15 was not designed for the Battlefield.

Acknowledge it.

There is no discreet Colt AR 15 DESIGN.

Colt bought the DESIGN from Fairchild, and proceeded to develop numerous variants. Including the SP1

 

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:44 am

Variant Definition:
a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

Are you ready to discuss the lowers yet?

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:42 am

I am correct in the fact that your most important aspect is your fear of whom it appeals to because of appearance.

Just curious.....are you aware that AR 15 STYLE weapons are used in very few crimes?

Blackvegetable » 01 Jul 2022, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:48 am

EVERY single one of my statements posted is demonstrably accurate.

Define "winning".

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:49 am

Nope, they are not.  When was the SP1 used on the battlefield?

Blackvegetable » 01 Jul 2022, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:47 am

Huey » 01 Jul 2022, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2022, 10:44 am

Variant Definition:
a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

Are you ready to discuss the lowers yet?

You lose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... e_variants

The tables here are split in a variety of categories, and provide an overview of different subtypes. For purposes of these tables, bold model numbers are weapons used (or previously used) by the U.S. Military while italic model numbers are weapons for commercial or export sale. See Glossary of terms for an explanation of each column.



EVERY **** CITATION.