Liberal Forum

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 4:37 pm

I’ll check for you three concise bullet points tomorrow.  Since I don’t live alone in a shared wall town house I have family arriving.

How many human shields does a little wizened **** like you need?

Blackvegetable » 26 Jun 2022, 4:50 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 4:50 pm

Huey » 26 Jun 2022, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2022, 4:37 pm

I’ll check for you three concise bullet points tomorrow.  Since I don’t live alone in a shared wall town house I have family arriving.

How many human shields does a little wizened **** like you need?

 

Sorry, I have a life away from the form.  You should try it.

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 7:17 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 7:17 am

Sorry, I have a life away from the form.  You should try it.

Tiny,

Why do you complain when I'm not here for you?
 

Blackvegetable » 12 Jun 2022, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 3:47 pm

Huey » 12 Jun 2022, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 3:37 pm

And the coup de grace:

An AR 15 semi auto bolt carrier group does not have that lug. In fact, it’s cut off. This results in a lighter weight BCG and that’s the primary advantage of semi-auto BCGs. At least it was way back before every company out there produced lightweight full auto rated BCGs.

@Blackvegetable  

What have you learned?  You learned that a full auto BCG does not make an AR 15 full auto,

And you learned that the original AR 15 had a different BCG than the Stoner Design.

I told you that years ago but you didn’t listen.  Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Now let's get back to what I've said.

I've said that the AR 15 rifle was designed for a specific, entirely non-civilian, purpose.

Though some people slap AR15 on anything, it technically refers to any firearm based on the AR 15 DESIGN.

To further the disassociation from civilian use, the platform is designed to use a SPECIFIC round, maximizing its military function. In fact, the round is even so labeled.

There is no discreet DESIGN for semi auto AR 15 style firearms, they use the Stoner design, with certain modifications.

This constitutes a VARIANT, NOT a DESIGN.

You've argued that the M4 is not based on the AR15. This is comically uninformed as the M4 is a variant of the M16.

Period. End of story.

Nod.

I'll go with this one. 

I've said that the AR 15 rifle was designed for a specific, entirely non-civilian, purpose.

The Armalite Rifle 15, which colt named the Colt c601, and later branded by the military, did exactly that.  The SP1 was designed for civilians as a hunting rifle using.

Though some people slap AR15 on anything, it technically refers to any firearm based on the AR 15 DESIGN.

Colt is the sole manufacturer that can "slap" AR 15 on their firearms.  Already posted for you.  The DDM4v7 does not even look like a Colt AR 15, is not named AR 15 and it is not branded on the weapon.  

To further the disassociation from civilian use, the platform is designed to use a SPECIFIC round, maximizing its military function. In fact, the round is even so labeled.

There is nothing special about the round as I have posted.  Many troops don't  like it.  The main reason the round was developed was two fold.  They wanted a round that would go further and faster, BUT was light enough that an infantryman could carry more ammo and replace the heavier 7.62.  The .222 was invented, which later became 5.56 as designated by the military.  The NATO 5.56 in use today was invented by a company in Belgium.  This is a long but interesting read:

https://www.snipercountry.com/5-56x45-n ... hronology/

You've argued that the M4 is not based on the AR15. This is comically uninformed as the M4 is a variant of the M16.

It is not based on the Colt AR 15.  It is based on the M16.  And the weapon in question is the DDM4v7 which is not licensed by Colt, nor does the weapon in question look like an M4.  

This should end your confusion. 

Now, go back and identify which lower goes with with rifle. 
 

Blackvegetable » 12 Jun 2022, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 3:47 pm

Huey » 12 Jun 2022, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 3:37 pm

And the coup de grace:

An AR 15 semi auto bolt carrier group does not have that lug. In fact, it’s cut off. This results in a lighter weight BCG and that’s the primary advantage of semi-auto BCGs. At least it was way back before every company out there produced lightweight full auto rated BCGs.

@Blackvegetable  

What have you learned?  You learned that a full auto BCG does not make an AR 15 full auto,

And you learned that the original AR 15 had a different BCG than the Stoner Design.

I told you that years ago but you didn’t listen.  Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Now let's get back to what I've said.

I've said that the AR 15 rifle was designed for a specific, entirely non-civilian, purpose.

Though some people slap AR15 on anything, it technically refers to any firearm based on the AR 15 DESIGN.

To further the disassociation from civilian use, the platform is designed to use a SPECIFIC round, maximizing its military function. In fact, the round is even so labeled.

There is no discreet DESIGN for semi auto AR 15 style firearms, they use the Stoner design, with certain modifications.

This constitutes a VARIANT, NOT a DESIGN.


You've argued that the M4 is not based on the AR15. This is comically uninformed as the M4 is a variant of the M16.

Period. End of story.

Nod.
 

 

Part 2:

I suggest you read this:

Exaggerated claims were made by Colt prior to the shift from the M14 to the Ar-15/M16. One commercial asserted: "Unsurpassed as a Sniper Rifle both accurate and lethal, at 500 yards the AR-15 makes a complete penetration of 10-gauge steel, or both sides of a steel helmet. On impact the tumbling action of the .223 caliber ammunition increases effectiveness." But bullets do not ‘tumble’. They may yaw and rotate 180 degrees within the body, but the standard definition of “tumble” suggests turning end-over-end through a full 360 degrees. This rarely happens.
 Sweden raised complaints about the M16 and its 5.56x45mm M193 projectile during and following the Viet Nam War. But the diplomatic conference that produced the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed that wounding characteristics of modern military small arms weapons and ammunition did not provide a basis for a new small arms protocol. More recently, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) objected to the terminal ballistics of contemporary military small arms ammunition and their alleging inconsistencies with the law of war.
(and then there is this again):
 There were complaints that the diminutive 5.56x45mm projectile failed to incapacitate enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through-and-through wounds consistently failed to render the targeted enemy hors de combat, necessitating a soldier shooting his target ten or more times before he ceases to be a threat.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ns/556.htm

 

 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 7:21 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 7:21 am

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 7:17 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 7:17 am

Sorry, I have a life away from the form.  You should try it.

Tiny,

Why do you complain when I'm not here for you?
 

 

LMAO!  Trust me, I don't. Hell, you were begging for my attention on another thread this morning.  One in which I am not participating.  That's hilarious.

I have a question. If you were facing many bad guys, Would you want a AR-15 or a Hand gun to defend yourself?

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 7:43 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 7:43 am

LMAO!  Trust me, I don't. Hell, you were begging for my attention on another thread this morning.  One in which I am not participating.  That's hilarious.

Bad start.

Would you like to see yourself queef?



 

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 7:42 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 7:42 am

Part 2:

I suggest you read this:

Exaggerated claims were made by Colt prior to the shift from the M14 to the Ar-15/M16. One commercial asserted: "Unsurpassed as a Sniper Rifle both accurate and lethal, at 500 yards the AR-15 makes a complete penetration of 10-gauge steel, or both sides of a steel helmet. On impact the tumbling action of the .223 caliber ammunition increases effectiveness." But bullets do not ‘tumble’. They may yaw and rotate 180 degrees within the body, but the standard definition of “tumble” suggests turning end-over-end through a full 360 degrees. This rarely happens.
 Sweden raised complaints about the M16 and its 5.56x45mm M193 projectile during and following the Viet Nam War. But the diplomatic conference that produced the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed that wounding characteristics of modern military small arms weapons and ammunition did not provide a basis for a new small arms protocol. More recently, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) objected to the terminal ballistics of contemporary military small arms ammunition and their alleging inconsistencies with the law of war.
(and then there is this again):
 There were complaints that the diminutive 5.56x45mm projectile failed to incapacitate enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through-and-through wounds consistently failed to render the targeted enemy hors de combat, necessitating a soldier shooting his target ten or more times before he ceases to be a threat.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ns/556.htm

Why, Imbecile?
 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 7:47 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 7:47 am

Why, Imbecile?

For an education on what you are talking about.

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 7:46 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 7:46 am

Bad start.

Would you like to see yourself queef?

Stop talking about it and do it.

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 7:53 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 7:53 am

For an education on what you are talking about.

But you can't ever remember what I'm talking about..

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 8:07 am

But you can't ever remember what I'm talking about..

You missed a post.  Or ignored it.  Posted this morning before that article. 

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 8:24 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 8:24 am

You missed a post.  Or ignored it.  Posted this morning before that article.

Was it relevant?

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 8:27 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 8:27 am

Was it relevant?

Yup.  

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 8:28 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 8:28 am

Yup.

You aren't very good at that.

To what?
 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 8:27 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 8:27 am

Was it relevant?

not to your slanted perception.

Blackvegetable » 27 Jun 2022, 8:31 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 8:31 am

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 8:28 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 8:28 am

Yup.

You aren't very good at that.

To what?
 

 

I'll bump it for you. 

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 7:41 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 7:41 am

Blackvegetable » 12 Jun 2022, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 3:47 pm

Huey » 12 Jun 2022, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 3:37 pm

And the coup de grace:

An AR 15 semi auto bolt carrier group does not have that lug. In fact, it’s cut off. This results in a lighter weight BCG and that’s the primary advantage of semi-auto BCGs. At least it was way back before every company out there produced lightweight full auto rated BCGs.

@Blackvegetable  

What have you learned?  You learned that a full auto BCG does not make an AR 15 full auto,

And you learned that the original AR 15 had a different BCG than the Stoner Design.

I told you that years ago but you didn’t listen.  Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Now let's get back to what I've said.

I've said that the AR 15 rifle was designed for a specific, entirely non-civilian, purpose.

Though some people slap AR15 on anything, it technically refers to any firearm based on the AR 15 DESIGN.

To further the disassociation from civilian use, the platform is designed to use a SPECIFIC round, maximizing its military function. In fact, the round is even so labeled.

There is no discreet DESIGN for semi auto AR 15 style firearms, they use the Stoner design, with certain modifications.

This constitutes a VARIANT, NOT a DESIGN.

You've argued that the M4 is not based on the AR15. This is comically uninformed as the M4 is a variant of the M16.

Period. End of story.

Nod.

I'll go with this one. 

I've said that the AR 15 rifle was designed for a specific, entirely non-civilian, purpose.

The Armalite Rifle 15, which colt named the Colt c601, and later branded by the military, did exactly that.  The SP1 was designed for civilians as a hunting rifle using.

Though some people slap AR15 on anything, it technically refers to any firearm based on the AR 15 DESIGN.

Colt is the sole manufacturer that can "slap" AR 15 on their firearms.  Already posted for you.  The DDM4v7 does not even look like a Colt AR 15, is not named AR 15 and it is not branded on the weapon.  

To further the disassociation from civilian use, the platform is designed to use a SPECIFIC round, maximizing its military function. In fact, the round is even so labeled.

There is nothing special about the round as I have posted.  Many troops don't  like it.  The main reason the round was developed was two fold.  They wanted a round that would go further and faster, BUT was light enough that an infantryman could carry more ammo and replace the heavier 7.62.  The .222 was invented, which later became 5.56 as designated by the military.  The NATO 5.56 in use today was invented by a company in Belgium.  This is a long but interesting read:

https://www.snipercountry.com/5-56x45-n ... hronology/

You've argued that the M4 is not based on the AR15. This is comically uninformed as the M4 is a variant of the M16.

It is not based on the Colt AR 15.  It is based on the M16.  And the weapon in question is the DDM4v7 which is not licensed by Colt, nor does the weapon in question look like an M4.  

This should end your confusion. 

Now, go back and identify which lower goes with which rifle. 
 

 

@Blackvegetable  

Huey » 27 Jun 2022, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jun 2022, 8:38 am

@Blackvegetable

The SP1 was designed for civilians as a hunting rifle using.

This is complete and utter ****.