Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 15 Jun 2022, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:06 am

Are these YOUR words?

Yup.  

And I have made multiple posts, in your own words, supporting that.

I answered your questions.  Now post your stand.  You are all over the map.

 

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 10:49 am

You were asked first.  Divert with demands and strike thru.  

You struck thru the answer.  This isn't the first time.  Don't bother asking questions if you don;t like the answer.

Unfortunately we do not know what your position is.  So by all means, post your position.  Now it seems, like I said days ago, your issue is with the ammo.  Not the weapon.  You would understand my position if you would actually read the info provided. 

Please, by all means, post your position.
You were asked first.  Divert with demands and strike thru.

I'm not bothering with the ****.

You won't acknowledge RELEVANT objective facts, then complain that I haven't made a case.


 

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:10 am

Yup.  

And I have made multiple posts, in your own words, supporting that.

I answered your questions.  Now post your stand.  You are all over the map.

No, I haven't. 

 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jun 2022, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:13 am

No, I haven't.

I know you have not posted your stand.  If it is different than what your words indicate please let us know.

Blackvegetable » 15 Jun 2022, 11:12 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:12 am

I'm not bothering with the ****.

You won't acknowledge RELEVANT objective facts, then complain that I haven't made a case.

when you post relevant Facts I acknowledge them.

when I do you throw a meltdown temper tantrum and use strike thru.
 

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:16 am

I know you have not posted your stand.  If it is different than what your words indicate please let us know.

You are lying, Thicker than ****.

The 5.56 mm is yet more evidence that the AR 15 sold to civilians is a variant of the Assualt Rifle designed by Stoner.

Do you understand?

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:17 am

when you post relevant Facts I acknowledge them.

when I do you throw a meltdown temper tantrum and use strike thru.

Only in the retelling. 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jun 2022, 11:22 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:22 am

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:17 am

when you post relevant Facts I acknowledge them.

when I do you throw a meltdown temper tantrum and use strike thru.

Only in the retelling. 

 

This thread is the record. 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jun 2022, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:21 am

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:16 am

I know you have not posted your stand.  If it is different than what your words indicate please let us know.

You are lying, Thicker than ****.

The 5.56 mm is yet more evidence that the AR 15 sold to civilians is a variant of the Assualt Rifle designed by Stoner.

Do you understand?

 

The original AR 15 SP1 was chambered for 223.  That is one of those objective facts that you struck thru.  Plus, multiple weapons fire a 556 but are not deemed Assualt rifles.  

Do you understand?

And according to objective fact the AR 15 SP1 sold to civilians is not deemed an assault weapon by the military.  Nor is the DDM4 7.  You also struck thru that as well.  

What else you got?
 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 11:10 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 11:10 pm

Read the citation.

Your citation did not say which is why I asked, there has to be features to distinguish an assault rifle from an ordinary rifle, what do you think they are?

And there was no citation in the post I replied to, but I found it in the article I already told you contained errors.
 

Cedar » 15 Jun 2022, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:25 am

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2022, 11:10 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2022, 11:10 pm

Read the citation.

Your citation did not say which is why I asked, there has to be features to distinguish an assault rifle from an ordinary rifle, what do you think they are?

And there was no citation in the post I replied to, but I found it in the article I already told you contained errors.

I have posted  what the old AR Ban said was an assault rifle as well as the Army definition.  He used strike thru on the army definition because it specifically mention at least two features you are referring to.  I figured he was a slow learner so I posted pics for him.  He struck thru those as well. 
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jun 2022, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:21 am

You are lying, Thicker than ****.

The 5.56 mm is yet more evidence that the AR 15 sold to civilians is a variant of the Assualt Rifle designed by Stoner.

Do you understand?

There is an important distinction between the AR-15 designed by Aramlite and the AR-15 sold to civilians.
 

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:32 am

I have posted  what the old AR Ban said was an assault rifle as well as the Army definition.  He used strike thru on the army definition because it specifically mention at least two features you are referring to.  I figured he was a slow learner so I posted pics for him.  He struck thru those as well.

He's ignoring select fire, huh? Progressive are retarded. He still hasn't said if my Browning Bar in 30.06 deer rifle should be banned.
 

Cedar » 15 Jun 2022, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:40 am

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:32 am

I have posted  what the old AR Ban said was an assault rifle as well as the Army definition.  He used strike thru on the army definition because it specifically mention at least two features you are referring to.  I figured he was a slow learner so I posted pics for him.  He struck thru those as well.

He's ignoring select fire, huh? Progressive are retarded. He still hasn't said if my Browning Bar in 30.06 deer rifle should be banned.
 

 

He always has ignored it.  He also ignores the fact that the original SP1 was stamped with caliber 223 and the M 16 (Stoner Design) was stamped 5.56. Which is important because the military definition specifies 5.56 but not 223.  
 

Cedar » 15 Jun 2022, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:36 am

There is an important distinction between the AR-15 designed by Aramlite and the AR-15 sold to civilians.

It's meaningless

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:46 am

He always has ignored it.  He also ignores the fact that the original SP1 was stamped with caliber 223 and the M 16 (Stoner Design) was stamped 5.56. Which is important because the military definition specifies 5.56 but not 223.

I told the retard they were 2 completely different rounds, despite there similarities. I wonder if the retard knows you can get a Remington 700 in 5.56 Nato?
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jun 2022, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:52 am

It's meaningless

Post your stand.  No one here seems to know what it is, Mr. Cryptic.  It seems your issue is with the round as opposed to the weapon. 

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:32 am

I have posted  what the old AR Ban said was an assault rifle as well as the Army definition.  He used strike thru on the army definition because it specifically mention at least two features you are referring to.  I figured he was a slow learner so I posted pics for him.  He struck thru those as well.

Irrelevant. 

Blackvegetable » 15 Jun 2022, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:52 am

It's meaningless

Why is it meaningless? Unless of course you also want to ban my deer rifle.
 

Cedar » 15 Jun 2022, 11:53 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:53 am

Huey » 15 Jun 2022, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2022, 11:46 am

He always has ignored it.  He also ignores the fact that the original SP1 was stamped with caliber 223 and the M 16 (Stoner Design) was stamped 5.56. Which is important because the military definition specifies 5.56 but not 223.

I told the retard they were 2 completely different rounds, despite there similarities. I wonder if the retard knows you can get a Remington 700 in 5.56 Nato?
 

 

Probably not.