Liberal Forum

Mrkelly » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

  Funny looking “L” 

[img]blob:ba6f03c8-0474-483c-8e8d-551f61162210[/img]
https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploa ... ag1985.jpg

[img]blob:c22b7c66-9216-40de-ae47-41bb0eb92637[/img]
https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploa ... ag1983.jpg

[img]blob:a99fc019-51b0-43d1-bd30-8de36684b314[/img]
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91b ... _QL80_.jpg


Want more ?
 

 

This time make sure it is not articles about Automatic rifles.  

*Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

This time make sure it is not articles about Automatic rifles.

why?

I was proving you wrong 

they were marketed as “assault rifles”   

and that’s where the gun grabbers got the term … they didn’t come up with it
 
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 4:45 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:45 am

Coozie,

Show me a post that you believe best represents your professed ideals.

You may choose from your archive or Vegas'...

There must be a plethora.

No, no...  
This is all about your favorite subject: You.

Relish the moment.

Mrkelly » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

why?

I was proving you wrong 

they were marketed as “assault rifles”   

and that’s where the gun grabbers got the term … they didn’t come up with it
 
 

 

The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, the firearms industry, gun control groups,[4][5][6] and the media.[7] It is sometimes used interchangeably with the term assault rifle,[8] which refers to selective fire rifles that use intermediate cartridges.[6] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_w ... %5D%20This

*Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, the firearms industry, gun control groups,[4][5][6] and the media.[7] It is sometimes used interchangeably with the term assault rifle,[8] which refers to selective fire rifles that use intermediate cartridges.[6] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_w ... %5D%20This

  Cool story Cletus 

I was talking about this reply  from you

”No, it was marketed as a Semi Automatic rifle:”   
 

DeezerShoove » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

No, no...  
This is all about your favorite subject: You.

Relish the moment.

Coozie,

Please.

Without me, you and @*VegasVagina are nothing.

Let's sort this out here and now.

Show me something choice..
 

*Huey » 26 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

26 minutes ago

I know.  THe manufacture told you it was redesigned.  The NATF told you it was changed in basic design.  Wiki listed the redesign in of the internal workings of the lower.

Yet, you seem to think you, a guy who has NO experience with either weapon, knows more about it than they do.

Keep running.  

BV's Sporter Loss https: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828

"Re-designed" again?

What was redesigned?

Mrkelly » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

  Cool story Cletus 

I was talking about this reply  from you

”No, it was marketed as a Semi Automatic rifle:” 

I posted one of the original Sporter advertising fliers.  No mention of Assault Weapon/Rifle.  The anti gun crowds use of the term predates your magazines.  

 

*Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

I posted one of the original Sporter advertising fliers.  No mention of Assault Weapon/Rifle.  The anti gun crowds use of the term predates your magazines.

  OK

SO … the gun manufacturers ran with it   

yur embarrassing yourself   
 

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

"Re-designed" again?

What was redesigned?

 

You have seen this many times before:

To prevent a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 from being readily converted for use with the select fire components, several features were changed. Parts changed include the lower receiver, bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, and safety/mode selector. The semi-automatic bolt carrier has a longer lightening slot to prevent the bolt's engagement with an automatic sear. Due to a decrease in mass, the buffer spring is heavier. On the select-fire version, the hammer has an extra spur which interacts with the additional auto-sear that holds it back until the bolt carrier group is fully in battery, when the automatic fire is selected.[76] Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option (this requires a registered part with the ATF). Lower receivers that are select-fire are identified by a pinhole above the safety/mode selection switch.[77][78][79][80] As designed by Colt, the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select-fire components. The pivot pin may also be slightly larger in diameter.[81][82]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15%E2%80%93style_rifle#:~:text=To%20prevent%20a,%5B82%5D

*Huey » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

You have seen this many times before:

To prevent a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 from being readily converted for use with the select fire components, several features were changed. Parts changed include the lower receiver, bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, and safety/mode selector. The semi-automatic bolt carrier has a longer lightening slot to prevent the bolt's engagement with an automatic sear. Due to a decrease in mass, the buffer spring is heavier. On the select-fire version, the hammer has an extra spur which interacts with the additional auto-sear that holds it back until the bolt carrier group is fully in battery, when the automatic fire is selected.[76] Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option (this requires a registered part with the ATF). Lower receivers that are select-fire are identified by a pinhole above the safety/mode selection switch.[77][78][79][80] As designed by Colt, the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select-fire components. The pivot pin may also be slightly larger in diameter.[81][82]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15%E2%80%93style_rifle#:~:text=To%20prevent%20a,%5B82%5D

That doesn't answer the question...it just debunks your fiction.

Mrkelly » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

  OK

SO … the gun manufacturers ran with it   

yur embarrassing yourself   
 

 

Actually, I'm not.  But by all means, keep posting.  This is highly entertaining. 

Blackvegetable » 1 minute ago » wrote: ↑

1 minute ago

That doesn't answer the question...it just debunks your fiction.

 

By all means, debunk it:

BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828


Everything I posted supports a new design.  
 

*Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

By all means, debunk it:

BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828

Everything I posted supports a new design.

You just did.

And your cowardice confirms it..

Just another citation from which you are running. 
 

*Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Actually, I'm not.  But by all means, keep posting.  This is highly entertaining.

  whatever helps you sleep  

*Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Actually, I'm not.  But by all means, keep posting.  This is highly entertaining.

Yes...you certainly are..

But you do it all the time.

one family

one design.
 

Mrkelly » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

  whatever helps you sleep 😴

You won't easily exhaust Quimmie's supply of Bold Yaps...

Blackvegetable » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

You just did.

And your cowardice confirms it..

Just another citation from which you are running.

The manufacturer says you are wrong.

The military says you are wrong.

The BATF says your are wrong.

The source of the citation I gave you says you are wrong.

 

*Huey » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

The manufacturer says you are wrong.

The military says you are wrong.

The BATF says your are wrong.

The source of the citation I gave you says you are wrong.

Only in your "re-interpretations".

You continue to labor the issue of "re-designed".....of what are these alleged "redesigns"?

if something is DESIGNED for a specific purpose, why would there ever be talk of RE-design?


 

Blackvegetable » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

20 minutes ago

Only in your "re-interpretations".

You continue to labor the issue of "re-designed".....of what are these alleged "redesigns"?

if something is DESIGNED for a specific purpose, why would there ever be talk of RE-design?

Colt saying it was redesigned is not an interpretation.

The BATF saying the weapon was changed in basic design is not a re interpretation.

The military saying it is not an assault rifle/weapon is not a re interpretation.  

Your source listing what was changed in the lower is not a re interpretation.  

I have posted the changes today as well as multiple times in the past.

IT was designed for the civilian population and was never labeled a military weapon