Liberal Forum

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 4:38 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:38 pm

no idiot, it was the lighter round. But that is not relevant to your argument.  The 7.62 was a more powerful round.  Bigger and heavier.  I posted the effects.  Being  Ana idiot  you prolly lined it out,

Who cares? The round needed to be lighter.  .
Source(s): [1][2]The .223 Remington (designated as the 223 Remington by the SAAMI[3] and 223 Rem by the CIP[4]) is a rimless, bottlenecked riflecartridge. It was developed in 1957 by Remington Arms and Fairchild Industries for the U.S. Continental Army Command of the United States Army as part of a project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity firearm. The .223 Remington is considered one of the most popular common use cartridges and is currently used by a wide range of semi-automatic and manual-action rifles as well as handguns.In the U.S. Army, the cartridge is referred to as "Cartridge, 5.56 mm ball M193." The 5.56×45mm NATO was also developed from the 223 Remington.[5]

The development of the cartridge, which eventually became the .223 Remington, was linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Development began in 1957. A project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of ArmaLite was also invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62×51mm NATO) design.[6]Winchester was also invited to participate.[7][5]

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:41 pm

No, I kick your *** constantly,  you gonna answer this question?

This is your argument:

My argument is that it is not a design optimized for assault. The ordinance compliments its purpose.

What makes the Ruger mini 14 not a design optimized for assault?

Run forest, run.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:41 pm

A project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. 

you literally cannot read.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm

A) I've already dismissed that ******* question.

2) when the **** do you answer questions?

3) the only *** you ever kick is your own.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:41 pm

A project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. 

you literally cannot read.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm

A) I've already dismissed that ******* question.

2) when the **** do you answer questions?

3) the only *** you ever kick is your own.

No, I kick your *** constantly,  you gonna answer this question?

This is your argument:

My argument is that it is not a design optimized for assault. The ordinance compliments its purpose.

What makes the Ruger mini 14 not a design optimized for assault?

Run forest, run.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 4:41 pm

A project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. 

you literally cannot read.

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 5:13 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 5:13 pm

The US military has been using the 5.56 mm round for nearly 60 years — here's how it all got startedThe smaller rounds weighed less, allowing troops to carry more ammunition into the fight. They also created less recoil, making it easier to level the weapon back onto the target between rounds and making automatic fire easier to manag

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-did ... 6mm-2019-9

here's how it all got started

The smaller rounds weighed less, allowing troops to carry more ammunition into the fight

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 5:10 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 5:10 pm

You have made it clear Looks is your primary problem

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 3:14 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 3:14 pm

You don't answer questions. 


 

Huey » 19 Apr 2021, 9:03 am » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2021, 9:03 am

@Blackvegetable  mark your calendar 

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/04/hig ... dy-failed/

This new piece of gun control legislation would ban the sale, manufacture, transfer, importation, and even possession of firearms magazines that can hold more than ten rounds.Gun Magazine Ban: Why It Won’t WorkHowever, the Department of Justice (DoJ) conducted a study in 2004 that concluded that such a ban actually did little to reduce gun violence.“Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” the study concluded.

Even it if it passes there is no way to control the number of magazines already in circulation.  Many, if not most, sidearms have magazines that hold well over 10 rounds.  Additionally, if your mass shooter is a law abiding sort he will just carry MORE magazines.  Only takes a second.  Take the VA Tech shooter.  He killed 33 and shot 17 others with two handguns.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 8:28 pm

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 5:10 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 5:10 pm

You have made it clear Looks is your primary problem

If it's already been dismissed, why do you continue to ask it?

Oh, yea....that...

 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jul 2022, 7:38 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 7:38 am

Huey » 05 Jul 2022, 7:27 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 7:27 am

No **** sherlock.  You have denied that the reason you want it banned was because of looks. Not on function.  And remember I asked you which Ruger Mini?  And you refused to answer?  You should read posts instead of lining them out,  You will look less stupid.

The wooden stock Mini 14 is the Ranch Mini 14.

If they want to look cool, they get the TACTICAL Min 14:



https://ruger.com/products/mini14Tactic ... odels.html

You have denied that the reason you want it banned was because of looks

No....I have denied your assertion that I want them banned because "they look scary".

Acknowledge that you understand the distinction. 

Not on function

I've spent a great deal of time ESTABLISHING that "function".

There is no civilian function considered in the design of the AR-15.

 

 

Huey » 05 Jul 2022, 7:40 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 7:40 am

Blackvegetable » 05 Jul 2022, 7:38 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 7:38 am

No....I have denied your assertion that I want them banned because "they look scary".

Acknowledge that you understand the distinction. 

I've spent a great deal of time ESTABLISHING that "function".

There is no civilian function considered in the design of the AR-15.

There is no difference is function and lethality between the two weapons.  One sells more because of its looks.  That is all the ban was about.  

You should be able to tell has how the features that are the list affect the function. 

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jul 2022, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 8:28 pm

Huey » 04 Jul 2022, 5:10 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jul 2022, 5:10 pm

You have made it clear Looks is your primary problem

If it's already been dismissed, why do you continue to ask it?

Oh, yea....that...

 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jul 2022, 9:46 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 9:46 am

But to denormalize AR-15s, we need to go further—by decoupling their regulation from that applied to other, less dangerous firearms. No one under the age of 21 should be able to buy these rifles. This will not be easy to achieve with politicians still at the behest of a gun industry that wants to pretend AR-15s are just like target shotguns or hunting rifles, firearms long ruled appropriate for a minimum purchase age of 18 years (unlike handguns, for which a buyer must be 21). Senate Republicans have refused to consider any move to introduce a higher age limit for purchasing and owning an AR-15. But the GOP and the industry are wrong: These guns are different from most others. If they were not so uniquely deadly, why would they almost invariably be mass shooters’ weapon of choice?


ibid.



 

 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jul 2022, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 9:48 am

Lastly, we must consider national legislation to rein in the gun industry’s deeply irresponsible marketing of the AR-15-led “tactical lifestyle.” Not so long ago, the U.S. restricted the tobacco industry’s use of misleading advertising to glamorize smoking. We did not ban the freedom to smoke cigarettes, but we did make the situation better, saved some lives, and began to cut the costs of smoking-related disease. Smoking still kills too many Americans, but thanks to action, a century-long growth in the death toll is slowly being reversed. We can make the same improvements for guns without impinging on people’s personal choice and civil liberties.


ibid.


STOP NORMALIZING AMMOSEXUALITY!

 

Huey » 05 Jul 2022, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 9:51 am

They are not uniquely deadly.  You have already posted that you want them banned based on looks. 

You need to stop being such a gunophobe.

Blackvegetable » 05 Jul 2022, 9:55 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 9:55 am

Tiny,

Unless you've killed people with guns, you really should shut the **** up now.

Huey » 05 Jul 2022, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 9:58 am

I haven't said if I have or haven't.  But we know you haven't.  So you should really shut the **** up now.    

By the way it is odd how you dismiss the comments on the round from those who did use them in combat.  Let me remind you:

Soldiers in combat suggested that existing ammunition (like the M855 5.56mm round) was often ineffective against the enemy, especially in urban environments where bullets tended to pass “through and through,” causing insufficient injury to put the enemy out of the fight, and escalating civilian deaths from ricochets and the increased number of bullets fired. 

https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod- ... -conflict/

You could go back to the 60s concerning those type of comments.  But you don't want to listen to them because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Blackvegetable » 05 Jul 2022, 10:15 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 10:15 am

Huey » 05 Jul 2022, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 9:58 am

I haven't said if I have or haven't.  But we know you haven't.  So you should really shut the **** up now.    

By the way it is odd how you dismiss the comments on the round from those who did use them in combat.  Let me remind you:

Soldiers in combat suggested that existing ammunition (like the M855 5.56mm round) was often ineffective against the enemy, especially in urban environments where bullets tended to pass “through and through,” causing insufficient injury to put the enemy out of the fight, and escalating civilian deaths from ricochets and the increased number of bullets fired. 

https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod- ... -conflict/

You could go back to the 60s concerning those type of comments.  But you don't want to listen to them because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Your rule, little twat.

Why must we go through another episode of

Sheilagh Can't Read

?


 

 

Huey » 05 Jul 2022, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 10:22 am

And you are running from the points made.  I have posted what combat soldiers say about the round shot from the military version of the weapon.  But you dismiss them.

Blackvegetable » 05 Jul 2022, 10:15 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 10:15 am

Huey » 05 Jul 2022, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 9:58 am

I haven't said if I have or haven't.  But we know you haven't.  So you should really shut the **** up now.    

By the way it is odd how you dismiss the comments on the round from those who did use them in combat.  Let me remind you:

Soldiers in combat suggested that existing ammunition (like the M855 5.56mm round) was often ineffective against the enemy, especially in urban environments where bullets tended to pass “through and through,” causing insufficient injury to put the enemy out of the fight, and escalating civilian deaths from ricochets and the increased number of bullets fired. 

https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod- ... -conflict/

You could go back to the 60s concerning those type of comments.  But you don't want to listen to them because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Your rule, little twat.

Why must we go through another episode of

Sheilagh Can't Read

?


 

 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jul 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 10:19 am

Skans » 05 Jul 2022, 10:09 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 10:09 am

Dumb.  People own AR's for many, many reasons. You hit on one possible small sector.  There may be some people who own an AR because they want what Navy Seals have. If anything, that's a good promotional for the US military.  Who cares?  What business is this of yours?  They are not harming anyone with their semi-auto .223's.

You hit on one possible small sector. 

Please.

AR-15s weren't designed for any of that civilian ****.

There are rifles whose functional designs have evolved over centuries of....uhhhh.....application. But they don't look as cool with camo.



 

 

Blackvegetable » 05 Jul 2022, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2022, 10:27 am

This is the last time.

It is IRRELEVANT. 

It sheds no light whatsoever on WHY the weapon and round were developed....THIS does..

subsequent military studies, including a groundbreaking report written by the U.S. military’s Operations Research Office during the Korean War, measured a gun’s lethality by looking at the maximum size of the temporary cavity. The report concluded that “smaller bullets can be used to produce battlefield physiological effects at least equivalent to those of the present standard .30 cal.” Although the Army remained committed to powerful, accurate, larger-calibre weapons, a small insurgency within it began advocating a novel idea known as S.C.H.V.: small-calibre, high-velocity. Adherents to S.C.H.V. proposed that lighter rifles loaded with smaller bullets could allow soldiers to carry more rounds and fire with less recoil, while still causing horrible wounds.
 
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-o ... o-powerful