Liberal Forum

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 11:50 am

But the ammo and the weapon are not used in combat.  As a matter of fact expanding rounds are illegal in war.

Stop with your **** assertions 

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 11:52 am

Actually, you discussing NATO 5.56x45 and the weapons used in combat is not relevant.  Neither were used in the shooting.

Post your case.

In 3 concise bullet points.

No more ****.
 

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 11:57 am

Stop with your **** assertions

I have already posted two links where the use of an expanding rifle rounds is a war crime and it is a fact that the DDM4 series semiautomatic was manufactured by Daniel Defense for the civilian population.

That is not assertion.  Those are indisputable facts.  And you are running from them 

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 11:59 am

Post your case.

In 3 concise bullet points.

No more ****.

You first.  

I have already made my case and posted verifiable sources.  If you would have read it instead of using strike thru you would have gotten it,  no more ****.

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:01 pm

I have already posted two links where the use of an expanding rifle rounds is a war crime and it is a fact that the DDM4 series semiautomatic was manufactured by Daniel Defense for the civilian population.

That is not assertion.  Those are indisputable facts.  And you are running from them

Daniel Defense had NOTHING to do with the design of the AR 15.
 

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:04 pm

You first.  

I have already made my case and posted verifiable sources.  If you would have read it instead of using strike thru you would have gotten it,  no more ****.

Already have...as you acknowledged 

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:09 pm

Daniel Defense had NOTHING to do with the design of the AR 15.

I am talking bout the Ulvalde shooting, the topic of the thread.  The Original SP1 or Armalite Rifle 15 has nothing to do with this.
 

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:10 pm

I am talking bout the Ulvalde shooting, the topic of the thread.  The Original SP1 or Armalite Rifle 15 has nothing to do with this.

Stop.

DD manufactures under a license.

It has nothing to do with the original function of the 610/SP1/M4/M16.
 

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:10 pm

Already have...as you acknowledged

I don’t see your three concise bullet points.  I will post mine, then YOU post yours.

1.  The DDM4 7 series weapon used in the Ulvalde shooting was a semiautomatic designed and manufactured by Daniel Defense for civilians and is not used by the military.

2.  The ammunition used was not NATO 5.56x45 FMJ ammunition used in combat.  Expanding rounds were used.

3.  The weapon used DOES NOT meet the Army definition of an an assault weapon.  No semiautomatic does.

Your turn.  Your case in three concise bullet points.

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:14 pm

Stop.

DD manufactures under a license.

It has nothing to do with the original function of the 610/SP1/M4/M16.

They don’t need a license.  The Patent for the original Colt SP1/Ar 15 expired 45 years ago.  Plus, they do not sell any weapon named AR 15.

Staplophobia » 26 Jun 2022, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:08 pm

 

Equally evolving here now makes each person a moving goal post of life never staying the same details twice as currently occupying space one of a kind.

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:21 pm

They don’t need a license.  The Patent for the original Colt SP1/Ar 15 expired 45 years ago.  Plus, they do not sell any weapon named AR 15.

https://danieldefense.com/rifles/ar-15-rifles.html

Enough 

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:22 pm

https://danieldefense.com/rifles/ar-15-rifles.html

Enough

Stop.

Ar 15 is a style.  It is link going to a dealer and saying you want to look at SUVs.  It has become a category.  They have no weapon named AR 15.  That would be trademark infringement.

Read it before you strike thru,

After most of Colt's patents for the Colt AR-15 expired in 1977, many firearm manufacturers began to produce copies of the Colt AR-15 under various names. While the patents expired, Colt retained the trademark of the AR-15 and is the sole manufacturer able to label their firearms as AR-15.[1] The "AR" in Colt AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault rifle".[2][3]

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm

I don’t see your three concise bullet points.  I will post mine, then YOU post yours.

1.  The DDM4 7 series weapon used in the Ulvalde shooting was a semiautomatic designed and manufactured by Daniel Defense for civilians and is not used by the military.

2.  The ammunition used was not NATO 5.56x45 FMJ ammunition used in combat.  Expanding rounds were used.

3.  The weapon used DOES NOT meet the Army definition of an an assault weapon.  No semiautomatic does.

Your turn.  Your case in three concise bullet points.

@Blackvegetable  

You got your case in three bullet points yet?
 

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:25 pm

Stop.

Ar 15 is a style.  It is link going to a dealer and saying you want to look at SUVs.  It has become a category.  They have no weapon named AR 15.  That would be trademark infringement.

Read it before you strike thru,

After most of Colt's patents for the Colt AR-15 expired in 1977, many firearm manufacturers began to produce copies of the Colt AR-15 under various names. While the patents expired, Colt retained the trademark of the AR-15 and is the sole manufacturer able to label their firearms as AR-15.[1] The "AR" in Colt AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault rifle".[2][3]

Stop with the analogies, stupid piece of ****.

Shut up until you figure out the difference between license and patent.

Cretin.
 

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:31 pm

Stop with the analogies, stupid piece of ****.

Shut up until you figure out the difference between license and patent.

Cretin.

Waiting on your three bullet Points.  Then prove your assertion with credible sources concerning licenses.

DD does not make a weapon called AR 15 and does not need a license.
 

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:31 pm

Stop with the analogies, stupid piece of ****.

Shut up until you figure out the difference between license and patent.

Cretin.

Despite the patents expiring, Colt retained the trademark of the AR-15 and is the sole manufacturer able to label their firearms as AR-15. Although Colt owns the AR-15 trademark, the "AR" in AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault rifle".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:31 pm

Stop with the analogies, stupid piece of ****.

Shut up until you figure out the difference between license and patent.

Cretin.

What does this sentence mean:

Despite the patents expiring, Colt retained the trademark of the AR-15 and is the sole manufacturer able to label their firearms as AR-15.

 

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm

I don’t see your three concise bullet points.  I will post mine, then YOU post yours.

1.  The DDM4 7 series weapon used in the Ulvalde shooting was a semiautomatic designed and manufactured by Daniel Defense for civilians and is not used by the military.

2.  The ammunition used was not NATO 5.56x45 FMJ ammunition used in combat.  Expanding rounds were used.

3.  The weapon used DOES NOT meet the Army definition of an an assault weapon.  No semiautomatic does.

Your turn.  Your case in three concise bullet points.

@Blackvegetable  

You got your case in three bullet points yet?

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 12:34 pm

Waiting on your three bullet Points.  Then prove your assertion with credible sources concerning licenses.

DD does not make a weapon called AR 15 and does not need a license.

 

Waiting on your three bullet Points

You've acknowledged that they have been posted.

Then prove your assertion with credible sources concerning licenses.

All this time and you had no idea AR-15 is a trademark?

Do you understand how trademarks work?


**** idiot.