Liberal Forum

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 7:56 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 7:56 am

We have already been over this.  You lost.  You refuse to specify which weapon you are discussing.  The Armalite Rifle 15 which became the Colt c601 and designated the M 16 was a weapon designed for the battlefield.  The ATF classifies it a class 3 NFA weapon as a machine gun.  You have the Certification Letter.  

The Colt SP1 AR 15 was specifically designed for civilians use and marketed as a hunting rifle.  You have one of the marketing ads.  It was no more dangerous than any other semi automatic weapon.

Stop with the narrative. 

shut the **** up and read.

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

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 7:57 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 7:57 am

I haven't lied about it.  You have not said why it is a lie.  Tell me in your own words, not some else's.  Plus, the military has no weapon named or under a specific category name Assault Rifle.

You didn't read it.

But said you did.


 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:19 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:19 am

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 7:56 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 7:56 am

We have already been over this.  You lost.  You refuse to specify which weapon you are discussing.  The Armalite Rifle 15 which became the Colt c601 and designated the M 16 was a weapon designed for the battlefield.  The ATF classifies it a class 3 NFA weapon as a machine gun.  You have the Certification Letter.  

The Colt SP1 AR 15 was specifically designed for civilians use and marketed as a hunting rifle.  You have one of the marketing ads.  It was no more dangerous than any other semi automatic weapon.

Stop with the narrative. 

shut the **** up and read.

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

 

There is nothing in there about the Colt Sp1 which was chambered for .223.  You will have to cut and past exactly what you think makes your case. You make a lot of demands for one who strikes thru everything.  

We have already been over this.  You lost.  You refuse to specify which weapon you are discussing.  The Armalite Rifle 15 which became the Colt c601 and designated the M 16 was a weapon designed for the battlefield.  The ATF classifies it a class 3 NFA weapon as a machine gun.  You have the Certification Letter.  

The Colt SP1 AR 15 was specifically designed for civilians use and marketed as a hunting rifle.  You have one of the marketing ads.  It was no more dangerous than any other semi automatic weapon.

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:16 am

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:00 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:00 am

I saw the first few seconds of that. The citation I gave discusses it.  You should have read it.  This is getting tedious.

Sheilagh, 

Explain what the ATF had to do with the DESIGN of the AR15.

 

Why?  They are more concerned with FUNCTION.  Technically, the ATF did not exist in 1964. 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:22 am

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 7:57 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 7:57 am

I haven't lied about it.  You have not said why it is a lie.  Tell me in your own words, not some else's.  Plus, the military has no weapon named or under a specific category name Assault Rifle.

You didn't read it.

But said you did.


 

 

I did.  It did not discuss the Colt SP1 which was chambered .223.

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:28 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:28 am

I did.  It did not discuss the Colt SP1 which was chambered .223.

What was the 1st Assault Rifle?

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:27 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:27 am

Why?  They are more concerned with FUNCTION.  Technically, the ATF did not exist in 1964.

Enough already.

**** idiot.
 

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:26 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:26 am

There is nothing in there about the Colt Sp1 which was chambered for .223.  You will have to cut and past exactly what you think makes your case. You make a lot of demands for one who strikes thru everything.  

We have already been over this.  You lost.  You refuse to specify which weapon you are discussing.  The Armalite Rifle 15 which became the Colt c601 and designated the M 16 was a weapon designed for the battlefield.  The ATF classifies it a class 3 NFA weapon as a machine gun.  You have the Certification Letter.  

The Colt SP1 AR 15 was specifically designed for civilians use and marketed as a hunting rifle.  You have one of the marketing ads.  It was no more dangerous than any other semi automatic weapon.

It's irrelevant. 
 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:32 am

What was the 1st Assault Rifle?

Anything that fired a bullet or projectile that would destroy opposition or blockage from a person's or people's intellectual of controlling time being displaced here goal.

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:32 am

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:28 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:28 am

I did.  It did not discuss the Colt SP1 which was chambered .223.

What was the 1st Assault Rifle?

Don't know.  It is not on the lists I gave you, You struck thru them.  

Take a look at this and tell me the difference:

Look very very carefully. 

Orignal M16 lower:


 
Orginal SP1 Lower:



 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:32 am

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:27 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:27 am

Why?  They are more concerned with FUNCTION.  Technically, the ATF did not exist in 1964.

Enough already.

**** idiot.
 

 

If you bothered to read the certification letter they would have told you that themselves.  

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:33 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:33 am

It's irrelevant.

You might want to look at the pic of the two lowers I just posted for you. 

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:37 am

Don't know.  It is not on the lists I gave you, You struck thru them.  

Take a look at this and tell me the difference:

Look very very carefully. 

Orignal M16 lower:


 
Orginal SP1 Lower:

READ THE **** CITATION, THICKER THAN ****.

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

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:38 am

You might want to look at the pic of the two lowers I just posted for you.

Read the citation, "armorer"

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:39 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:39 am

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:38 am

You might want to look at the pic of the two lowers I just posted for you.

Read the citation, "armorer"

 

I have already read it.  Either tell me what you think bolsters your argument or don't ask again.  

Now, look at the two lowers and tell me what is different.  Remember that rant you went on about 5.56?  Only one of those was chambered for 5.56. There are also more differences. You can shoot the 5.56 thru the SP1 but you could have problems with it.  

One was designed for the battlefield and one was not.   

Nucleomituphobia » 14 Jun 2022, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:38 am

Nucleomituphobia » 13 Jun 2022, 4:24 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 4:24 pm

@Huey  I got a really tricked out BCG. What do you think? This will fit all AR's and Sportsters and Carbines and all variants and even Machine Guns, Light Machine Guns, Gatling Guns. etc.

@Blackvegetable  Cool looking BCG. this one goes multiple caliber.

 

Well, even when  @Blackvegetable   is wrong he is tenacious like a rat.  

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:39 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:39 am

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:38 am

You might want to look at the pic of the two lowers I just posted for you.

Read the citation, "armorer"

 

I did.  Which part is important to you?  

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:43 am

I have already read it.  Either tell me what you think bolsters your argument or don't ask again.  

Now, look at the two lowers and tell me what is different.  Remember that rant you went on about 5.56?  Only one of those was chambered for 5.56. There are also more differences. You can shoot the 5.56 thru the SP1 but you could have problems with it.  

One was designed for the battlefield and one was not.

Why do you keep lying about this?

Is there something wrong with you?

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 8:45 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:45 am

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:43 am

I have already read it.  Either tell me what you think bolsters your argument or don't ask again.  

Now, look at the two lowers and tell me what is different.  Remember that rant you went on about 5.56?  Only one of those was chambered for 5.56. There are also more differences. You can shoot the 5.56 thru the SP1 but you could have problems with it.  

One was designed for the battlefield and one was not.

Why do you keep lying about this?

Is there something wrong with you?

 

What part has got your panties in twist?  Now, back to the pictures.  When you look at them remember your rant about 5.56.  And then tell me the other differences.  

Huey » 14 Jun 2022, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 8:50 am

What part has got your panties in twist?  Now, back to the pictures.  When you look at them remember your rant about 5.56.  And then tell me the other differences.

Why do you lie about having read this citation?

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