Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 7:34 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 7:34 am

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 7:27 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 7:27 am

If you say so.  It is obvious you have never heard of a SAW, never mind carried and shot one.  

ATF definition of a machine gun:

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:

• Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
  ​
• The frame or receiver of any such weapon
  ​
• Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or
• Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-g ... initions-0

Here is the ATF list of Class 3 weapons.  Go ahead and post where the DDM4, or any AR 15 is on the list.

was the AR 15 designed and developed and THEN classified by ATF, or was it classified by the ATF THEN  designed and developed?

**** nitwit.

Read the citation, "armorer"
 

 

Here is an interesting article you won't read:

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7W604w2X0
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians.







So much for the argument that this rifle was never intended for the civilian market. Now a FOIA production of the original classification letter proves even ATF agreed at the time. (“A 1963 Colt AR-15 Advertisement”/Soldier Systems.)

That should clear up any confusion you have concerning the issue and your question.  

 

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 8:01 am

Here is an interesting article you won't read:

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7W604w2X0
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians.



So much for the argument that this rifle was never intended for the civilian market. Now a FOIA production of the original classification letter proves even ATF agreed at the time. (“A 1963 Colt AR-15 Advertisement”/Soldier Systems.)

That should clear up any confusion you have concerning the issue and your question.

I don't see the answer.


You LIE about reading citations.
 

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 8:03 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 8:03 am

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 8:01 am

Here is an interesting article you won't read:

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7W604w2X0
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians.



So much for the argument that this rifle was never intended for the civilian market. Now a FOIA production of the original classification letter proves even ATF agreed at the time. (“A 1963 Colt AR-15 Advertisement”/Soldier Systems.)

That should clear up any confusion you have concerning the issue and your question.

I don't see the answer.


You LIE about reading citations.
 

 

I don't see where you specified which weapon you are discussing.  I highly recommend you click the link.  Even the ATF, or what the ATF was in 1963, views them as two separate weapons.  The citation also will tell when the Colt AR 15 was classified as a civilian weapon. It will also tell when the Colt AR 15 went on the market and when the M 16 was issued to the troops.  If you read the citation you might ask yourself "if the Colt AR 15 was designed for the battlefield why was it sold to civilians BEFORE the M 16 was issued to troops why didn't they just issue the Colt AR 15?"

Game.  Set.  Match. 

I guess   @Blackvegetable   realizes he lost. 

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 11:07 am

I guess   @Blackvegetable   realizes he lost.

M4SelfInflictedHeadWound,

Are you trying to recover from yet ANOTHER "incident"?
 

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 8:14 am

I don't see where you specified which weapon you are discussing. I highly recommend you click the link.  Even the ATF, or what the ATF was in 1963, views them as two separate weapons.  The citation also will tell when the Colt AR 15 was classified as a civilian weapon. It will also tell when the Colt AR 15 went on the market and when the M 16 was issued to the troops.  If you read the citation you might ask yourself "if the Colt AR 15 was designed for the battlefield why was it sold to civilians BEFORE the M 16 was issued to troops why didn't they just issue the Colt AR 15?"

Game.  Set.  Match.

Not this again.

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 11:20 am

M4SelfInflictedHeadWound,

Are you trying to recover from yet ANOTHER "incident"?

     

 

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 11:20 am

Not this again.

I can see you have not read the citation.  Both weapons were developed and sent to the ATF at the same time.  Of course the Colt Semi automatic Rifle had no issues and was deemed a non NFA weapon meaning it was designed for civilian use.  It was on the market BEFORE the M 16 was issued to troops.

Nod.

I don't see where you specified which weapon you are discussing. I highly recommend you click the link.  Even the ATF, or what the ATF was in 1963, views them as two separate weapons.  The citation also will tell when the Colt AR 15 was classified as a civilian weapon. It will also tell when the Colt AR 15 went on the market and when the M 16 was issued to the troops.  If you read the citation you might ask yourself "if the Colt AR 15 was designed for the battlefield why was it sold to civilians BEFORE the M 16 was issued to troops why didn't they just issue the Colt AR 15?"

Game.  Set.  Match.

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 7:34 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 7:34 am

was the AR 15 designed and developed and THEN classified by ATF, or was it classified by the ATF THEN  designed and developed?

**** nitwit.

Read the citation, "armorer"

You have been answered.  You lose.  Read the citation.  

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 11:27 am

I can see you have not read the citation. Both weapons were developed and sent to the ATF at the same time.  Of course the Colt Semi automatic Rifle had no issues and was deemed a non NFA weapon meaning it was designed for civilian use.  It was on the market BEFORE the M 16 was issued to troops.

Nod.

I don't see where you specified which weapon you are discussing. I highly recommend you click the link.  Even the ATF, or what the ATF was in 1963, views them as two separate weapons.  The citation also will tell when the Colt AR 15 was classified as a civilian weapon. It will also tell when the Colt AR 15 went on the market and when the M 16 was issued to the troops.  If you read the citation you might ask yourself "if the Colt AR 15 was designed for the battlefield why was it sold to civilians BEFORE the M 16 was issued to troops why didn't they just issue the Colt AR 15?"

Game.  Set.  Match.

:rofl:  
 

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 12:07 pm

You're the sole most excruciatingly boring, annoying little muthafugger here. I'm being serious.
 

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 12:07 pm

Don’t worry.  The next time you show your ignorance that info will be reposted.

Hell, if you had bothered to read the citation you also would have been able to read the certification letter.  But, you know you are wrong.

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 12:17 pm

Don’t worry.  The next time you show your ignorance that info will be reposted.

Hell, if you had bothered to read the citation you also would have been able to read the certification letter.  But, you know you are wrong.

What does the ATF have to do with the purpose of the design?

Read the citation you've been lying about reading.

https://www.library.ucdavis.edu/exhibit ... -violence/

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 1:03 pm

What does the ATF have to do with the purpose of the design?

Read the citation you've been lying about reading.

https://www.library.ucdavis.edu/exhibit ... -violence/

Of which weapon?  


 

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 1:06 pm

Of which weapon?

The AR 15

DeplorablePatriot » 13 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 12:16 pm

You're the sole most excruciatingly boring, annoying little muthafugger here. I'm being serious.

You should have said that to begin with, Palooka 

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 11:27 am

I can see you have not read the citation.  Both weapons were developed and sent to the ATF at the same time.  Of course the Colt Semi automatic Rifle had no issues and was deemed a non NFA weapon meaning it was designed for civilian use.  It was on the market BEFORE the M 16 was issued to troops.

Nod.

I don't see where you specified which weapon you are discussing. I highly recommend you click the link.  Even the ATF, or what the ATF was in 1963, views them as two separate weapons.  The citation also will tell when the Colt AR 15 was classified as a civilian weapon. It will also tell when the Colt AR 15 went on the market and when the M 16 was issued to the troops.  If you read the citation you might ask yourself "if the Colt AR 15 was designed for the battlefield why was it sold to civilians BEFORE the M 16 was issued to troops why didn't they just issue the Colt AR 15?"

Game.  Set.  Match.

This entire narrative is complete fiction.

It is so **** idiotic, its author should be left outside to die of thirst.
 

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 1:08 pm

The AR 15

You have two weapons to choose from.

1.  The Armalite  Rifle 15 that became the Colt 601 and later desk designate the M 16.

Designed for the battlefield

2.  The Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle.

For which this was the Purpose:


 

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 1:11 pm

This entire narrative is complete fiction.

It is so **** idiotic, its author should be left outside to die of thirst.

Really?  That’s all you got?  Well, the actual certification letter from what became the atf is embedded in the article.  You should read it.  

you should pay attention to the differences mentioned in the letter

 

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 1:17 pm

You have two weapons to choose from.

1.  The Armalite  Rifle 15 that became the Colt 601 and later desk designate the M 16.

Designed for the battlefield

2.  The Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle.

For which this was the Purpose:

No....I don't. 

The Sporter is a modified AR15.

Hence the name.

It is not a discreet design.

This argument will never go anywhere.