Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 10:25 am

But you are entirely full of ****.

https://library.ucdavis.edu/exhibit/fir ... -violence/Sturmgewehr 44: The First Assault Rifle In response to the demands of the battlefield, the Germans developed the Sturmgewehr (Stg) 44 whose name translates as “Assault Rifle.” Its model number is derived from the year of its issue, 1944

Once again you are talking of an assault RIFLE.  Are you retarded?  Being intentionally stupid?  Read the citations that refute you.  

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 10:27 am

Once again you are talking of an assault RIFLE.  Are you retarded?  Being intentionally stupid?  Read the citations that refute you.

No, stop...

Seriously...
 

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 10:29 am

No, stop...

Seriously...

I can’t deal with your special kind of stoopid this morning.  

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 10:29 am

No, stop...

Seriously...

and this is why youhave no credibility in this debate.

 

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 10:31 am

I can’t deal with your special kind of stoopid this morning.

Argue with the government:

The paper defines an "assault weapon" as a "civilian, semiautomatic version of a military weapon." Generally, the characteristics of an assault weapon make firearms more lethal, more accurate, and/or less conspicuous when used. Federal and State laws also establish specific definitions of an "assault weapon" for the purposes of regulation.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... lt-weapons

You might want to read this as well.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... /1808/text

And that's that....

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 10:38 am

and this is why youhave no credibility in this debate.

I have scholarship.

You have NRA fairy tales.


 

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 10:52 am

I have scholarship.

You have NRA fairy tales.

Nah, I just posted from two government sources that define an assault weapon as a semi automatic weapon with particular exterior features.

I know you won't accept this because it would shoot down your entire argument for the last 6 years.

Let's put it this way,  A select fire rife capable of automatic fire  can be defined as an assault weapon.  But a semi automatic with certain exterior features that fires only one shot per trigger squeeze is not defined as a military assault rifle.  

And, Assault Rifles are already regulated as machine guns under the NFAs.  

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 10:57 am

Nah, I just posted from two government sources that define an assault weapon as a semi automatic weapon with particular exterior features.

I know you won't accept this because it would shoot down your entire argument for the last 6 years.

Let's put it this way,  A select fire rife capable of automatic fire  can be defined as an assault weapon.  But a semi automatic with certain exterior features that fires only one shot per trigger squeeze is not defined as a military assault rifle.  

And, Assault Rifles are already regulated as machine guns under the NFAs.

All of than dribble is irrelevant.
 

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 11:04 am

All of than dribble is irrelevant.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink......

 

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 11:08 am

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink......

Why is Congress defining something in use for 40 years?

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:10 pm

Why is Congress defining something in use for 40 years?

**** your questions. 

Challenge. 
​​​​​​​1. same lie. 

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:10 pm

Why is Congress defining something in use for 40 years?

What you posted is not what congress is defining.  You can stop with the questions until you acknowledge you are either lying or are wrong.

What you posted is already restricted and regulated by congress,

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:14 pm

What you posted is not what congress is defining.  You can stop with the questions until you acknowledge you are either lying or are wrong.

What you posted is already restricted and regulated by congress,

There is no question that you are one of the stupidest human beings alive.
 

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:15 pm

There is no question that you are one of the stupidest human beings alive.

If you say so.  I am laughing my *** off at your ignorance right now.  You refuse to acknowledge irrefutable facts because it totally debunks your 6 year long argument.

As I said, argue with congress and the state legislatures that use the definition for assault weapons.   I have nothing else to give you.  

Now, you can give some narrative to support your argument.  I have no more questions to answer.

Bidencrimefamily » 14 Dec 2023, 6:16 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 6:16 pm

Sp the Supreme Court couldn't of banned but banned. I'm getting confused here.

You started out that way, ***.


Read your link. The SOCTUS left the issue unheard - so that ban (ON SALES ONLY) goes into effect (after having accomplished what Madison Avenue could not, for a grateful gun industry). The matter has not been ruled on. The very first time that a state in another federal district attempts such a ban, and that district says the ban is unConstitutional, then the SCOTUS will have to step in and clarify.

The only thing that "happened," according to your source, is nothing happened. The ban will go into effect, because the SCTOUS did not issue a ruling, one way or the other. 

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 12:18 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:18 pm

If you say so.  I am laughing my *** off at your ignorance right now.  You refuse to acknowledge irrefutable facts because it totally debunks your 6 year long argument.

As I said, argue with congress and the state legislatures that use the definition for assault weapons.   I have nothing else to give you.  

Now, you can give some narrative to support your argument.  I have no more questions to answer.

As I said, argue with congress and the state legislatures that use the definition for assault weapons

An assault weapon is an assault weapon.

What the NRA does through its stooges is irrelevant.

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:31 pm

An assault weapon is an assault weapon.

What the NRA does through its stooges is irrelevant.

Son, I posted from the government.  In this discussion concerning what is an rifle and what is an assault weapon you are worng.

Argue with congress and tell the. They are wrong.  Argue with DID and tell them they are wrong.  Argue with the ATF and tell them they are wrong.


Your argument is with them.  I know it hurts to see your argument for 6 years crash and burn but be a man about it.

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:34 pm

Son, I posted from the government.  In this discussion concerning what is an rifle and what is an assault weapon you are worng.

Argue with congress and tell the. They are wrong.  Argue with DID and tell them they are wrong.  Argue with the ATF and tell them they are wrong.

Your argument is with them.  I know it hurts to see your argument for 6 years crash and burn but be a man about it.

Nobody gives a ****...

What do you think people called it for 40 years?


 

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:36 pm

Nobody gives a ****...

What do you think people called it for 40 years?

40 years from when?  The 40s or the 80s?

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:31 pm

An assault weapon is an assault weapon.

What the NRA does through its stooges is irrelevant.

The photo of you posing with the shot gun tells all anyone needs to know about you....