Liberal Forum

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 4:16 pm

No, the ATF did not say that.  He was paraphrasing.

Post where in the letter that is stated.

So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’

I will take the rest of the year off if you can post where in the ATF Letter posted at the site I provided That appears.

Goof luck.  Think about, the rest of the year.  At no cost to you when you fail

No, you won't. 

You've lost this 327 different ways.

You have run from your own citations.

No citation has ever confirmed that the SP1 is a discreet design...everything describes it as a variant, or version.

This is the plain meaning of the words in your citations..



 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 4:22 pm

It doesn't matter what the ATF says, Reframy...the fact is that what was submitted to ATF was the ORIGINAL DESIGN, an ASSAULT RIFLE, as well as the MODIFIED SEMI-AUTOMATIC VERSION OF THE SAME WEAPON.

**** imbecile.

LMOA
So now it doesn’t matter what the ATF says.  

What was submitter was the military rifle and the other was a weapon where they  have changed the weapon in basic design to the extent that it is not a firearm in the machine category…”

Meaning it was not designed to be a military assault weapon and the military does not classify it as such.  

Go take care of those stumps, PP.
 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 4:27 pm

No, you won't. 

You've lost this 327 different ways.

You have run from your own citations.

No citation has ever confirmed that the SP1 is a discreet design...everything describes it as a variant, or version.

This is the plain meaning of the words in your citations..

So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’

Yeah, I will take the rest  year off if you can find that wording in the certification letter at the link I provided.

I have not lost this.

1. According to the ATF they have changed the weapon in basic design to the extent that it is not a firearm in the machine category…”

You lose,

2. The Colt SP1 WAS NOT designed for the battlefield.

You lose.

3.  The Colt SP1 is not an assault rifle because it was specifically designed as a semi automatic.  The military does not classify it as such because of that.

You lose,

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 4:35 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 4:35 pm

So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’

Yeah, I will take the rest  year off if you can find that wording in the certification letter at the link I provided.

I have not lost this.

1. According to the ATF they have changed the weapon in basic design to the extent that it is not a firearm in the machine category…”

You lose,

2. The Colt SP1 WAS NOT designed for the battlefield.

You lose.

3.  The Colt SP1 is not an assault rifle because it was specifically designed as a semi automatic.  The military does not classify it as such because of that.

You lose,

No..you won't....you have no integrity.

Just take the L.
 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 4:42 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 4:42 pm

No..you won't....you have no integrity.

Just take the L.

No, this is another grand victory.  @Cannonpointer   If blackvegetable satisfies the requirements of the challenge lock my account for the rest of the year.

PP,

This is what you have to post FROM THE LETTER:

yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’

Exactly.


 

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 4:49 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 4:49 pm

No, this is another grand victory.  @Cannonpointer   If blackvegetable satisfies the requirements of the challenge lock my account for the rest of the year.

PP,

This is what you have to post FROM THE LETTER:

yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’

Exactly.

2Stands,

Do you recall being asked of your source was lying?

Do you remember your answer?
 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:28 pm

2Stands,

Do you recall being asked of your source was lying?

Do you remember your answer?

PP,

The ATF letter is not lying. 

I accept your surrender. Your Askholio routine will not get you out of this mega defeat.

So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’

Yeah, I will take the rest  year off if you can find that wording in the certification letter at the link I provided.

I have not lost this.

1. According to the ATF they have changed the weapon in basic design to the extent that it is not a firearm in the machine category…”

You lose,

2. The Colt SP1 WAS NOT designed for the battlefield.

You lose.

3.  The Colt SP1 is not an assault rifle because it was specifically designed as a semi automatic.  The military does not classify it as such because of that.

You lose,
 
 

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 5:31 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:31 pm

PP,

The ATF letter is not lying. 

I accept your surrender. Your Askholio routine will not get you out of this mega defeat.

So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’

Yeah, I will take the rest  year off if you can find that wording in the certification letter at the link I provided.

I have not lost this.

1. According to the ATF they have changed the weapon in basic design to the extent that it is not a firearm in the machine category…”

You lose,

2. The Colt SP1 WAS NOT designed for the battlefield.

You lose.

3.  The Colt SP1 is not an assault rifle because it was specifically designed as a semi automatic.  The military does not classify it as such because of that.

You lose,

That is not what you were asked, Reframy.


 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 5:34 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:34 pm

That is not what you were asked, Reframy.

**** your questions. Nobody is obligated to answer questions from anybody who chronically evades questions themselves. 

Got it, punk? 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 5:34 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:34 pm

That is not what you were asked, Reframy.

Bv = Loser

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 4:30 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 4:30 pm

LMOA
So now it doesn’t matter what the ATF says.  

What was submitter was the military rifle and the other was a weapon where they  have changed the weapon in basic design to the extent that it is not a firearm in the machine category…”

Meaning it was not designed to be a military assault weapon and the military does not classify it as such.  

Go take care of those stumps, PP.

Why did they submit a military weapon to ATF, along with a weapon you insist was of a discreet design?

Why would your citation lie about what ATF said?
 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 5:34 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:34 pm

That is not what you were asked, Reframy.

You were asked to show where in the ATF letter these exact Words appeared in the context you claim:

So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’

Get the **** off you high horse and get it done or admit the ATF did not say that.

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 5:37 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:37 pm

Why did they submit a military weapon to ATF, along with a weapon you insist was of a discreet design?

Why would your citation lie about what ATF said?

Not what you were you were asked.

The letter explains why.

You were asked to show where in the ATF letter these exact Words appeared in the context you claim:

So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’
 

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 5:42 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:42 pm

Not what you were you were asked.

The letter explains why.

You were asked to show where in the ATF letter these exact Words appeared in the context you claim:

So the ATF said, yes, this modified ‘automatic rifle’

Because you are trying to avoid the obvious.


You never answer questions. 



 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 5:45 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:45 pm

Because you are trying to avoid the obvious.

You never answer questions.

Sorry, PP, you are diverting from showing me where in the letter the ATF said what you claim.

You have been avoiding the obvious since the first time you decided to show your ignorance on this topic.

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 5:48 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:48 pm

Sorry, PP, you are diverting from showing me where in the letter the ATF said what you claim.

You have been avoiding the obvious since the first time you decided to show your ignorance on this topic.

No, I'm not.

I don't have to do anything. 

Your rule.
 

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 6:01 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 6:01 pm

No, I'm not.

I don't have to do anything. 

Your rule.

Thank you.  I accept your surrender.  You lose the challenge and the argument.

Bye.

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 5:28 pm

2Stands,

Do you recall being asked of your source was lying?

Do you remember your answer?

No questions, dick sucker. 

https://i.imgflip.com/6yjej4.jpg
 

Huey » 20 Nov 2022, 6:02 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 6:02 pm

Thank you.  I accept your surrender.  You lose the challenge and the argument.

Bye.

You got strung up by another of your citations you failed to read, Here's a Word.

That doesn't oblige me to do a **** thing, and this "challenge" is no less arbitrary than your last.

You cannot answer a single question...not one.

Because they are Killer Apps.

You can't win flinching in the satellite parking lot.

Blackvegetable » 20 Nov 2022, 6:41 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Nov 2022, 6:41 pm

You got strung up by another of your citations you failed to read, Here's a Word.

That doesn't oblige me to do a **** thing, and this "challenge" is no less arbitrary than your last.

You cannot answer a single question...not one.

Because they are Killer Apps.

You can't win flinching in the satellite parking lot.

what the ATF said:

have changed the weapon in basic design to the extent that it is not a firearm in the machine category…”

You should have read the entire article.  You didn’t.  You lost