Liberal Forum

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 1:40 pm

Nice cherry picking:

In order to prevent a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 from being readily converted for use with the select fire components, Colt changed a number of features. Parts changed include the lower receiver, bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, and safety/mode selector. The semi-automatic bolt carrier has a longer lightening slot to prevent the bolt's engagement with an automatic sear. Due to a decrease in mass the buffer spring is heavier. On the select fire version, the hammer has an extra spur which interacts with the additional auto-sear that holds it back until the bolt carrier group is fully in battery, when automatic fire is selected.[22] Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option.[23] As designed by Colt the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select fire components.[24]

**** imbecile. 

It's YOUR **** citation, and it isn't "cherry picking".

Now answer the questions.
 

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 1:42 pm

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 1:40 pm

Nice cherry picking:

In order to prevent a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 from being readily converted for use with the select fire components, Colt changed a number of features. Parts changed include the lower receiver, bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, and safety/mode selector. The semi-automatic bolt carrier has a longer lightening slot to prevent the bolt's engagement with an automatic sear. Due to a decrease in mass the buffer spring is heavier. On the select fire version, the hammer has an extra spur which interacts with the additional auto-sear that holds it back until the bolt carrier group is fully in battery, when automatic fire is selected.[22] Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option.[23] As designed by Colt the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select fire components.[24]

**** imbecile. 

It's YOUR **** citation, and it isn't "cherry picking".

Now answer the questions.
 

 

You did not use the entire citation.

Let me point your attention here:

In order to prevent a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 from being readily converted for use with the select fire components, Colt changed a number of features.

Do you note the word CIVILIAN?  

And I point your attention to here as well:

Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option.[23] As designed by Colt the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select fire components.

THat means you can not take the parts from an M16 that make it a battlefield weapon and place them into a Sporter that is NOT a battlefield weapon.

Plus, the point is moot because as far as today's non battlefield semi automatics those part won't work. 

 

@Blackvegetable  

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[1]


Imbecile, you do it all the time.  

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 1:48 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 1:48 pm

You did not use the entire citation.

Let me point your attention here:

In order to prevent a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 from being readily converted for use with the select fire components, Colt changed a number of features.

Do you note the word CIVILIAN?  

And I point your attention to here as well:

Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option.[23] As designed by Colt the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select fire components.

THat means you can not take the parts from an M16 that make it a battlefield weapon and place them into a Sporter that is NOT a battlefield weapon.

Plus, the point is moot because as far as today's non battlefield semi automatics those part won't work. 

I know from experience that you are **** stupid, but you are outdoing yourself today.

.You did not use the entire citation.

Followed IMMEDIATELY by

Let me point your attention here:

but that isn't sufficiently "cherry picked", cause DMA is gonna get GRANULAR, bichez!

Do you note the word CIVILIAN?  

Answer my questions, Dwarf, and let's get this done.

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 1:58 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 1:58 pm

I know from experience that you are **** stupid, but you are outdoing yourself today.

Followed IMMEDIATELY by

but that isn't sufficiently "cherry picked", cause DMA is gonna get GRANULAR, bichez!

Answer my questions, Dwarf, and let's get this done.

Clem, the parts that are interchangeable ARE NOT the parts that make it a battlefield weapon.  They were redesigned so that could not happen.  Plus, none of the parts will work in a modern day non battlefield semi automatic.  

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 1:51 pm

@Blackvegetable  

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[1]

Imbecile, you do it all the time.

No, I don't...ever.  


Cherry picking is talking about your notifications "since this morning", when over the previous 24 you'd outdone me.


It is insisting that a small sample of 8 tournament results is dispositive.

It does not, in the main, involve excerpting the parts relevant to your argument from the text..

You didn't cite the entire article.

Let's cut this short..

Answer the first time..

Why would the introductory sentences of a paragraph contradict its balance?
 

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:00 pm

Clem, the parts that are interchangeable ARE NOT the parts that make it a battlefield weapon.  They were redesigned so that could not happen.  Plus, none of the parts will work in a modern day non battlefield semi automatic.

The fact that these components are interchangeable suggests that the platforms to which they are bolted come off the same assembly line...
 

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 2:19 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:19 pm

No, I don't...ever.  

Cherry picking is talking about your notifications "since this morning", when over the previous 24 you'd outdone me.

It is insisting that a small sample of 8 tournament results is dispositive.

It does not, in the main, involve excerpting the parts relevant to your argument from the text..

You didn't cite the entire article.

Let's cut this short..

Answer the first time..

Why would the introductory sentences of a paragraph contradict its balance?

I just showed you did.  You left out the portion that explains that the parts that make the M16 a battlefield weapon CAN NOT be interchanged with the Civilian Sporter.  Those particular parts were redesigned so that could not happen.  The portion you cherry picked simply said "most".  You cherry picked that.  The parts I posted and reposted for you can not be used in the Sporter.    

Additionally, you can not use those parts on Modern Day non battlefield semi automatics.  So there is NO reason to ban them either.  

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 2:21 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:21 pm

The fact that these components are interchangeable suggests that the platforms to which they are bolted come off the same assembly line...

Clem, the parts that make the M16 a battlefield weapon can not be interchanged with the Civilian Sporter.  

Also, Clem, those parts are not interchangeable with todays non battlefield weapons.  Nod if you understand.  The Sporter has been out of production for 40 years.

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 2:24 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:24 pm

I just showed you did.  You left out the portion that explains that the parts that make the M16 a battlefield weapon CAN NOT be interchanged with the Civilian Sporter.  Those particular parts were redesigned so that could not happen.  The portion you cherry picked simply said "most".  You cherry picked that.  The parts I posted and reposted for you can not be used in the Sporter.    

Additionally, you can not use those parts on Modern Day non battlefield semi automatics.  So there is NO reason to ban them either.

You left out the portion that explains that the parts that make the M16 a battlefield weapon CAN NOT be interchanged with the Civilian Sporter.

In the words of your citation

"Not readily"

Had you answered that the first time we'd be half done.

The portion you cherry picked simply said "most".  You cherry picked that. 

That is not cherry picking, because it isn't rendered less true by anything else in the text.

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:27 pm

Clem, the parts that make the M16 a battlefield weapon can not be interchanged with the Civilian Sporter.  

Also, Clem, those parts are not interchangeable with todays non battlefield weapons.  Nod if you understand.  The Sporter has been out of production for 40 years.

Dwarf,

Focus on what I am saying..

Turns out everything you had been told  abut AR15 is ****..

Get on with your life.....it isn't as if it doesn't happen every day.

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:28 pm

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 2:24 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:24 pm

I just showed you did.  You left out the portion that explains that the parts that make the M16 a battlefield weapon CAN NOT be interchanged with the Civilian Sporter.  Those particular parts were redesigned so that could not happen.  The portion you cherry picked simply said "most".  You cherry picked that.  The parts I posted and reposted for you can not be used in the Sporter.    

Additionally, you can not use those parts on Modern Day non battlefield semi automatics.  So there is NO reason to ban them either.

You left out the portion that explains that the parts that make the M16 a battlefield weapon CAN NOT be interchanged with the Civilian Sporter.

In the words of your citation

"Not readily"

Had you answered that the first time we'd be half done.

The portion you cherry picked simply said "most".  You cherry picked that. 

That is not cherry picking, because it isn't rendered less true by anything else in the text.

 

Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option.[23] As designed by Colt the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select fire components.

The parts that make the M16 a battlefield weapon are NOT interchangeable with the Sport which has not been in production since the 70s.  Those parts will not work in a modern non battlefield semi automatic.  So you point is moot and your argument cheese.  

Doesn't matter what you ignorantly think you can do with a Sporter.  It is not around anymore.  

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 2:31 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:31 pm

Dwarf,

Focus on what I am saying..

Turns out everything you had been told  abut AR15 is ****..

Get on with your life.....it isn't as if it doesn't happen every day.

Clem, Focus on what I am saying. 

You don't anything about and just got massively curb stomped.

But as I said, all your ignorance concerning the Sporter has nothing, not one wit, to do with today's non battlefield semi automatics.  

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 2:34 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:34 pm

Clem, Focus on what I am saying. 

You don't anything about and just got massively curb stomped.

But as I said, all your ignorance concerning the Sporter has nothing, not one wit, to do with today's non battlefield semi automatics.

Clem, Focus on what I am saying. 

No...because it is all false..

No one here needs your help reading, Verbal.


Complain to the sources of your citations.

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm

No...because it is all false..

No one here needs your help reading, Verbal.

Complain to the sources of your citations.

No Clem, my knowledge of the subject is practical, experienced, and knowledgeable.  Yours is based on ignorance and agenda.  

@Blackvegetable  

Clem, you introduced the Civilian Sporter to this thread.  That is a non battlefield weapon that is 50 years old, and has not  been produced in 4 years.  

What does that have to do with today's non battlefield semi automatics?  None of them are from the Colt M16 family, none share any parts.  Could you explain this me?

Your arguments concerning the Sporter are cheese but what exactly does that have to do with today's semi automatic weapons?

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:42 pm

@Blackvegetable  

Clem, you introduced the Civilian Sporter to this thread.  That is a non battlefield weapon that is 50 years old, and has not  been produced in 4 years.  

What does that have to do with today's non battlefield semi automatics?  None of them are from the Colt M16 family, none share any parts.  Could you explain this me?

Your arguments concerning the Sporter are cheese but what exactly does that have to do with today's semi automatic weapons?

Dwarf,

I had no idea there was such a thing before you started waving it around..


 

Huey » 23 Apr 2021, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 2:38 pm

No Clem, my knowledge of the subject is practical, experienced, and knowledgeable.  Yours is based on ignorance and agenda.

Mine enjoys the distinct advantage of being consistent with all known references...


Carry on.

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 3:36 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 3:36 pm

Dwarf,

I had no idea there was such a thing before you started waving it around..

That was the name.  Whec speak of the 1964 Colt semi auto AR 15 that is what you are talking about, imbecile,

Clem, if the Sporter was a weapon designed for the battlefield the ATF would have classified is a Class 3 firearm under the NFA of 1934.  It would have been considered a machine gun.

But it doesn’t matter.  None of today’s weapons are related to it. They are not designed for the battlefield.

Blackvegetable » 23 Apr 2021, 3:39 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Apr 2021, 3:39 pm

Mine enjoys the distinct advantage of being consistent with all known references...

Carry on.

Clem, you do not understand the references.