Liberal Forum

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:26 am

Most of the links you use were given to you by me.

Now explain the relevance of your 1957 report AND how it applies to todays modern sporting rifles.

No.


Were that so I'd be as uninformed as you.

I am not.
 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:29 am

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:26 am

Most of the links you use were given to you by me.

Now explain the relevance of your 1957 report AND how it applies to todays modern sporting rifles.

No.


Were that so I'd be as uninformed as you.

I am not.
 

 

Here is the problem with your 1957 test.  Armalite did not get the contract.  In 1959 the M14 became the standard issue rifle.  

By all means, show your fear, by running, of telling us the relevance of the report as it pertains to the SP1 and  todays modern sporting rifles.

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:34 am

Here is the problem with your 1957 test.  Armalite did not get the contract.  In 1959 the M14 became the standard issue rifle.  

By all means, show your fear, by running, of telling us the relevance of the report as it pertains to the SP1 and  todays modern sporting rifles.

You are stupid beyond measure.

Post the title of the paper, verbatim.

Just the **** title.

 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:41 am

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:34 am

Here is the problem with your 1957 test.  Armalite did not get the contract.  In 1959 the M14 became the standard issue rifle.  

By all means, show your fear, by running, of telling us the relevance of the report as it pertains to the SP1 and  todays modern sporting rifles.

You are stupid beyond measure.

Post the title of the paper, verbatim.

Just the **** title.

 

 

Title has already been posted numerous times.  By me, and by your reposting where I posted it.

Here is the condition.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Stipulate to that.  

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:44 am

Title has already been posted numerous times.  By me, and by your reposting where I posted it.

Here is the condition.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Stipulate to that.

you have given 3 different answers.

Resolve the conflict you created.

 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:46 am

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:44 am

Title has already been posted numerous times.  By me, and by your reposting where I posted it.

Here is the condition.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Stipulate to that.

you have given 3 different answers.

Resolve the conflict you created.

 

 

*******, I suggest you reread what I posted before you use strike thu.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.


Title has already been posted numerous times.  By me, and by your reposting where I posted it.

Here is the condition.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Stipulate to that.

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 10:53 am

*******, I suggest you reread what I posted before you use strike thu.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Title has already been posted numerous times.  By me, and by your reposting where I posted it.

Here is the condition.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Stipulate to that.

THEN **** DO IT.

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 11:11 am

THEN **** DO IT.

Nope.  Not until you stipulate to the conditions, Meltdown Mary.  

When see you stipulate to your end of the bargain I will do it.

*******, I suggest you reread what I posted before you use strike thu.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Title has already been posted numerous times.  By me, and by your reposting where I posted it.

Here is the condition.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Stipulate to that.

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 11:12 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 11:12 am

Nope. Not until you stipulate to the conditions, Meltdown Mary.  

When see you stipulate to your end of the bargain I will do it.

*******, I suggest you reread what I posted before you use strike thu.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Title has already been posted numerous times.  By me, and by your reposting where I posted it.

Here is the condition.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Stipulate to that.

Back at ya.

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 11:21 am

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 11:12 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 11:12 am

Nope. Not until you stipulate to the conditions, Meltdown Mary.  

When see you stipulate to your end of the bargain I will do it.

*******, I suggest you reread what I posted before you use strike thu.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Title has already been posted numerous times.  By me, and by your reposting where I posted it.

Here is the condition.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Stipulate to that.

Back at ya.

 

 

Huey » 03 Sep 2022, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 11:17 am

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2022, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 11:13 am

That's quite enough.

I will decide when it is enough.

Since I want to your next bit of dumbassery i will  do it.  It will be the last demand or question I entertain until you make a case.

EVALUATION OF SMALL CALIBER HIGH VELOCITY RIFLES. ARMALITE (AR-15)

Now make your case.  No questions or demands

 

 

Repost number 3.

Doesn't matter.  I am not obligated to answer questions until Mar 6 2023.  There is no way you can make a narrative argument.  

Have at it.  
 

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 11:34 am

Repost number 3.

Doesn't matter.  I am not obligated to answer questions until Mar 6 2023.  There is no way you can make a narrative argument.  

Have at it.

How about interrupting this crap with the story of how you ran down Bo Jackson from behind in a bowl game.

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:04 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 11:34 am

Repost number 3.

Doesn't matter.  I am not obligated to answer questions until Mar 6 2023.  There is no way you can make a narrative argument.  

Have at it.

How about interrupting this crap with the story of how you ran down Bo Jackson from behind in a bowl game.

 

Your demand was answered.  Now, please explain the relevance.  This is gonna be good.  

Blackvegetable » 03 Sep 2022, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 11:57 am

Huey » 03 Sep 2022, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

03 Sep 2022, 11:25 am

Still no case.  Keep in mind the report you are referring to is from 1957. So make your case.

By what factor did the SCHV program increase the speed at which a modified .22 left the muzzle of an AR-15?

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2022, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 3:19 pm

Huey » 04 Sep 2022, 3:08 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2022, 3:08 pm

5X, nothing you argued made any sense.

Only if you remain in denial about the purpose for which the AR-15 designed and developed. 

Everything you know about the AR-15, the 5.56 nato and .223 rounds, THAT IS TRUE, you learned from me.

 

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 11:34 am

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 11:21 am

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 11:12 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 11:12 am

*******, I suggest you reread what I posted before you use strike thu.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Title has already been posted numerous times.  By me, and by your reposting where I posted it.

Here is the condition.  I will repost the title one more time AND you will give your narrative, without questions, as to the relevance of the report.

Stipulate to that.[/s]

Back at ya.

EVALUATION OF SMALL CALIBER HIGH VELOCITY RIFLES. ARMALITE (AR-15)

Repost number 3.

Doesn't matter.  I am not obligated to answer questions until Mar 6 2023.  There is no way you can make a narrative argument.  

Have at it.

Tell me what you fail to understand. 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:16 pm

Tell me what you fail to understand.

Sorry, I don't see a detailed narrative.  You have failed to explain the relevance of a 1957 report on a weapon that the US military did not buy and how it applies to the modern sports rifles sold today.  

Epic fail  Didn't think you could do it.  That's why you pussied of the conditions.  No problem though.  You report has absolutely no relevance to the above.  

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:23 pm

Sorry, I don't see a detailed narrative. You have failed to explain the relevance of a 1957 report on a weapon that the US military did not buy and how it applies to the modern sports rifles sold today.  

Epic fail  Didn't think you could do it.  That's why you pussied of the conditions.  No problem though.  You report has absolutely no relevance to the above.

It doesn't demand one.

The AR-15 was SPECIFICALLY developed to launch a modified .22 caliber round at 3X its "civilian speed".

A muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes.

But for its use in an Assault Weapon, it was increased by a factor of 3.

Again,, no existing civilian market for the system. But sell the sizzle, and now you're exploiting another deep vein along the Motherlode of American Stupid.

That was the point being made by the comment, and that point remains valid regardless of your yapping about 5 and Swifts.

Unlike Cheney's insistence that Clinton "decimated" the military.
 

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:23 pm

Sorry, I don't see a detailed narrative.  You have failed to explain the relevance of a 1957 report on a weapon that the US military did not buy and how it applies to the modern sports rifles sold today.  

Epic fail  Didn't think you could do it.  That's why you pussied of the conditions.  No problem though.  You report has absolutely no relevance to the above.

This is an argument, not an exercise in Narrative.


Nod.

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 12:44 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:44 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:23 pm

Sorry, I don't see a detailed narrative.  You have failed to explain the relevance of a 1957 report on a weapon that the US military did not buy and how it applies to the modern sports rifles sold today.  

Epic fail  Didn't think you could do it.  That's why you pussied of the conditions.  No problem though.  You report has absolutely no relevance to the above.

This is an argument, not an exercise in Narrative.

Nod.

Oh, it's coming.

Nod. 
 

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:47 pm

Oh, it's coming.

Nod.

Are you threatening more yap, yap?

Blackvegetable » 05 Sep 2022, 8:15 am » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2022, 8:15 am

Being that you're a psychotic imbecile, you shouldn't tell anyone what is relevant.

If you repeatedly demand that I kick your ***, don't be shocked if I occasionally choose to indulge you.

From the guy who thinks women have dicks... ^       

Cannonpointer » 06 Sep 2022, 12:50 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 12:50 pm

From the guy who thinks women have dicks... ^   

From the guy who sucks dicks.