Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 10:49 am

The word "design" is in the singular.

We know you struggle with the idea, but take my word for it.

First you must acknowledge the fact before I entertain any more of your jive.

Golly gee, there are is the new design for the Sporter.  That makes TWO designs.  How often were you dropped on your head as a baby?

:rofl:  

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 10:59 am

You get the gist.  I posted the design for the Sporter.  That make at least TWO.

You lose.  To me.  Again.  LMAO!  You hate that.  

By the way you are still running from the ATF classification of machine gun, and the questions concerning your shorter loss.

Keep running.

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 10:29 am

Dickhead's original argument is the Colt Sporter, the original AR 15 SEMI automatic was designed for war.  When he was schooled that it was not the Armalite 15 automatic weapon, that Colt just used the name, redesigned the lower, he does what he usually does when he wrong.

This has been a years long temper tantrum for him

that's stupid on it's face...while it's great for saving ammo, it's not so great in a firefight...hence the Fully Automatic classification with a 3 shot option...and I'm about the furthest removed from any weapons knowledge...no wonder brown studied Russian history....  
 
 

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:01 am

You get the gist.  I posted the design for the Sporter.  That make at least TWO.

You lose.  To me.  Again.  LMAO!  You hate that.  

By the way you are still running from the ATF classification of machine gun, and the questions concerning your shorter loss.

Keep running.

I get the joke...

You continue to demand that your assertions be given the same currency as credible citations.

But you're not only a chronic liar, you're a moron.

That works against you.
 

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 10:26 am

Because you are **** stupid, JuCo.

No, brown, you are **** stupid...
 

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:09 am

I get the joke...

You continue to demand that your assertions be given the same currency as credible citations.

But you're not only a chronic liar, you're a moron.

That works against you.

We already know by my citations that you are wrong about the machine gun classification.

Now, here is the stand alone M16 page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

If you click variants you will not see a semi automatic on there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Variants

You will see the M16A3.  The redesign on that one was to make it 3 round burst instead of full auto.  That is now at least 3 designs.

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 11:09 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:09 am

I get the joke...

You continue to demand that your assertions be given the same currency as credible citations.

But you're not only a chronic liar, you're a moron.

That works against you.

If you go to the derivatives at that link you will some different designs.

One family.  MULTIPLE designs.

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:15 am

We already know by my citations that you are wrong about the machine gun classification.

Now, here is the stand alone M16 page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

If you click variants you will not see a semi automatic on there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Variants

You will see the M16A3.  The redesign on that one was to make it 3 round burst instead of full auto.  That is now at least 3 designs.

No...were that true you would have answered the question. 

Besides, it has nothing to do with the issue...

Not to mention that it completely destroys your argument.




 

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 10:29 am

All that froth and you never answered the question.

That question was answered. 1934, 1968, 1986 and any other year a NFA or GCA was discussed.

You gonna lie about that again?

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 11:26 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:26 am

No...were that true you would have answered the question. 

Besides, it has nothing to do with the issue...

Not to mention that it completely destroys your argument.

Second or third time on this thread:

1 Family.  MULTIPLE designs as shown.

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:29 am

Second or third time on this thread:

1 Family.  MULTIPLE designs as shown.

That's asserted.

What is clearly SHOWN is ONE design.

What you think you see is irrelevant. 
 

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:30 am

That's asserted.

What is clearly SHOWN is ONE design.

What you think you see is irrelevant.

Not at all.  1 family, multiple designs, as supported by the citations.  And you'd not the Sporter WAS not listed as a variant of the M 16.

Game over.

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:32 am

Not at all.  1 family, multiple designs, as supported by the citations.  And you'd not the Sporter WAS not listed as a variant of the M 16.

Game over.

The citation clearly says "the....design"..

In English, this indicates to the reader that there is only ONE of them.

No, really!
 

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:28 am

That question was answered. 1934, 1968, 1986 and any other year a NFA or GCA was discussed.

You gonna lie about that again?

1934, the correct answer, was not among those you provided.

 

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 9:13 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 9:13 am

Blackvegetable » 18 Mar 2025, 5:14 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2025, 5:14 pm

The idiot breaking out in caps; apparently.

Why don't we wait to see if @*HooooeyVagina answers?

Ok.  (Although your question is not relevant because it is federal law.)  1934. And it was not changed in 68, 86, or any other year that an NFA or GCA was written.  It isn’t federal law.  Take your argument To them.  

 

 

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:37 am

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:28 am

That question was answered. 1934, 1968, 1986 and any other year a NFA or GCA was discussed.

You gonna lie about that again?

1934, the correct answer, was not among those you provided.

 

 

Liar, it was the FIRST time I answered it and you lied about it.  I told you I had answered it.  Note the time stamps.

Try again.  

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:40 am

Liar, it was the FIRST time I answered it and you lied about it.  I told you I had answered it.  Note the time stamps.

Try again.

Maybe you should have posted that as evidence instead of 1034...

The point being that the legal definition crafted in 1934 has no bearing whatsoever on the question of "design"....which would begin development 20 years later.

 

Blackvegetable » 18 Mar 2025, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2025, 3:13 pm

*Huey » 18 Mar 2025, 2:56 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Mar 2025, 2:56 pm

That’s a direct quote.  You are getting with the words.  Every time you lose it’s what you do.

The BATF says you are an idiot.

Colt says your an idiot.

Your own source says your an idiot.

Hell, you’re the idiot that called an M &P 15-22 an assault rifle based solely on a pic.

Machinegun category is the verbiage for automatic weapons used by the BATF.

  ****

 

Just to set the record straight.  Admit you were wrong.

*Huey » 19 Mar 2025, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:54 am

Just to set the record straight.  Admit you were wrong.

A) it's entirely irrelevant 

B) it's a very long debate

 

Blackvegetable » 19 Mar 2025, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 11:57 am

A) it's entirely irrelevant 

B) it's a very long debate

You have said that was your opinion when I first posted and then went on about it.  

It is a very “over” debate and you lost.  You made stoopid comments and now you run from them.
 

JohnnyYou » 19 Mar 2025, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

19 Mar 2025, 8:07 am

We all know your strong desire to beeeeee  alone in a dressing room with those Tiny White Balls.

Welp, you EARNED this one, CUCKYBOI!!

Buh BYE!!

https://i.postimg.cc/Pf04sdrF/****.jpg