Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 05 Jun 2025, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2025, 11:51 am

Who is telling you this?

Bear in mind, your reading skills are unusually poor.

So far, Mary, no one who has actually served remembers the Colt Sporter, a weapon YOU claim was designed for combat, being issues as a personal weapon, or even in the arms room.
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:55 am

why don't you give me a rough idea of what percentage of your sacrifice was spent toting an M16 and a couple of full clips...

M 16s don't have clips.  I will tell you every time I had to qualify with it I qualified expert.  Everytome.  Just as I qualified expert every time I qualified with any weapon.

*Huey » Yesterday, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:57 am

M 16s don't have clips.  I will tell you every time I had to qualify with it I qualified expert.  Everytome.  Just as I qualified expert every time I qualified with any weapon.

I'm not talking about controlled conditions.


I'm talking about, you know, walking it down to the local piggly wiggly...

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:59 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:59 am

I'm not talking about controlled conditions.

I'm talking about, you know, walking it down to the local piggly wiggly...

You don't know what you are talking about.  An M16did not have clips. Correct the question.

 

*Huey » Yesterday, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:02 am

You don't know what you are talking about.  An M16did not have clips. Correct the question.

Don't divert. Tiny..

Correct the question.

:rofl:  

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 9:04 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:04 am

*Huey » Yesterday, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:02 am

You don't know what you are talking about.  An M16did not have clips. Correct the question.

Don't divert. Tiny..

Correct the question.

 

 

This is how a man does it.  Those are your words.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:55 am

*Huey » Yesterday, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:50 am

****, even those in Transportation would need a personal weapon.

Your **** attempts at insults continue to prove you are ignorant of the military,

why don't you give me a rough idea of what percentage of your sacrifice was spent toting an M16 and a couple of full clips...
 

 

And M 16 did not use clips so I spent no time toting them.  Try again.  I will add this to your greatest military hits like CV gas, the PK, and C5.
 

Mrkelly » 05 Jun 2025, 7:38 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2025, 7:38 pm

This **** again Goober   

[img]blob:577d4c8c-3e05-4de1-829e-149107a27389[/img]
https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploa ... ag1985.jpg

[img]blob:baf22c4c-f4b9-4f0d-9ef7-d4c248584ebf[/img]
https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploa ... ag1986.jpg

  Plenty more if you need them

Mr. Kelly.  You are wrong.  Your examples also do not prove, but actually disprove your point.  Here's why:

• I looked at both publications you linked to.  I had to blow them up to actually see everything on the cover.  One was published in 1986, the other in 1985.  They were published BEFORE the Hughes Amendment.  The Hughes Amendment banned civilian ownership of all full-auto weapons produced after May 19, 1986.  So, when these books/magazines were published, new full-auto rifles and sub-machine guns were available for people to purchase through a Class III dealer. 
• If you look on one of the publications, it clearly mentions "full-auto".  Also, it was one of the few publications with articles about silencers. Around that time, silencers were also legal to own, but they were not nearly as common as they are today. Silencers were NFA items and also had to transfer through Class III dealers. So, clearly this publication was intended for people who were interested in FULL-AUTO Machine guns, i.e. Assault Rifles.
• Also, notice they use the term "Assault Rifle" not "Assault Weapon", as you claimed.  Assault Rifle is synonymous with select-fire (switchable semi-auto and full-auto) weapons.  Assault Weapon was a term invented by the Gun-Ban activists. Assault Rifle derives from the German term "Sturmgewehr", or more particularly the Sturmgewher44, the very first select-fire small arm ever invented and first used in WWII. Sturmgewher translates to "Storm Rifle".  The best English translation is Assault Rifle. 

I am not and do not claim to be a veteran. 
 
 

Skans » Yesterday, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:10 am

Mr. Kelly.  You are wrong.  Your examples also do not prove, but actually disprove your point.  Here's why:

• I looked at both publications you linked to.  I had to blow them up to actually see everything on the cover.  One was published in 1986, the other in 1985.  They were published BEFORE the Hughes Amendment.  The Hughes Amendment banned civilian ownership of all full-auto weapons produced after May 19, 1986.  So, when these books/magazines were published, new full-auto rifles and sub-machine guns were available for people to purchase through a Class III dealer. 
• If you look on one of the publications, it clearly mentions "full-auto".  Also, it was one of the few publications with articles about silencers. Around that time, silencers were also legal to own, but they were not nearly as common as they are today. Silencers were NFA items and also had to transfer through Class III dealers. So, clearly this publication was intended for people who were interested in FULL-AUTO Machine guns, i.e. Assault Rifles.
• Also, notice they use the term "Assault Rifle" not "Assault Weapon", as you claimed.  Assault Rifle is synonymous with select-fire (switchable semi-auto and full-auto) weapons.  Assault Weapon was a term invented by the Gun-Ban activists. Assault Rifle derives from the German term "Sturmgewehr", or more particularly the Sturmgewher44, the very first select-fire small arm ever invented and first used in WWII. Sturmgewher translates to "Storm Rifle".  The best English translation is Assault Rifle. 

I am not and do not claim to be a veteran.

Thanks for that.  I told him that the magazines were about full autos because I have seen those publications used before.  

*Huey » Yesterday, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:14 am

Thanks for that.  I told him that the magazines were about full autos because I have seen those publications used before.

Kelly has no clue of the historical context of those particular magazines.  They really were about full-auto guns and silencers - geared toward those who were into buying NFA items.  

There used to be a publication that came out called Shotgun News - you could pick up a copy at gun shows.  I started going to gun shows when I was around 20. They had all kinds of full-auto parts kits, classified ads for full-auto and silencers. I found that kind of stuff interesting back then. It was kind of a confusing world - no internet to explain things to you.  So, publications like Shotgun News - and those like what Kelly linked to were all you had to go on.  Oh, and if you could befriend an Old Guy who was into NFA to explain it to you - that's what you had for information. 
 

*Huey » Yesterday, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:57 am

M 16s don't have clips.  I will tell you every time I had to qualify with it I qualified expert.  Everytome.  Just as I qualified expert every time I qualified with any weapon.
 

You're right about that.  Just to let you know, Mean Arms out of Woodstock GA actually makes an AR-15 that uses clips. The one in the video has a removable magazine that takes a clip, but the ones they make for California which do not have removable magazines can be fed from an ammo-clip. 

https://youtu.be/h69CU84eDl4
 
 

Skans » Yesterday, 9:30 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:30 am

*Huey » Yesterday, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:57 am

M 16s don't have clips.  I will tell you every time I had to qualify with it I qualified expert.  Everytome.  Just as I qualified expert every time I qualified with any weapon.

 

You're right about that.  Just to let you know, Mean Arms out of Woodstock GA actually makes an AR-15 that uses clips. The one in the video has a removable magazine that takes a clip, but the ones they make for California which do not have removable magazines can be fed from an ammo-clip. 

https://youtu.be/h69CU84eDl4
 
 

 

That's cool.  They will want to ban that next because it loads to fast.

Skans » Yesterday, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:10 am

Mr. Kelly.  You are wrong.  Your examples also do not prove, but actually disprove your point.  Here's why:

• I looked at both publications you linked to.  I had to blow them up to actually see everything on the cover.  One waspublished in 1986, the other in 1985.  They were published BEFORE the Hughes Amendment.  The Hughes Amendment banned civilian ownership of all full-auto weapons produced after May 19, 1986.  So, when these books/magazines were published, new full-auto rifles and sub-machine guns were available for people to purchase through a Class III dealer. 
• If you look on one of the publications, it clearly mentions "full-auto".  Also, it was one of the few publications with articles about silencers. Around that time, silencers were also legal to own, but they were not nearly as common as they are today. Silencers were NFA items and also had to transfer through Class III dealers. So, clearly this publication was intended for people who were interested in FULL-AUTO Machine guns, i.e. Assault Rifles.
• Also, notice they use the term "Assault Rifle" not "Assault Weapon", as you claimed.  Assault Rifle is synonymous with select-fire (switchable semi-auto and full-auto) weapons.  Assault Weapon was a term invented by the Gun-Ban activists. Assault Rifle derives from the German term "Sturmgewehr", or more particularly the Sturmgewher44, the very first select-fire small arm ever invented and first used in WWII. Sturmgewher translates to "Storm Rifle".  The best English translation is Assault Rifle. 

I am not and do not claim to be a veteran.

  This disproves my point that they were marketed as “assault rifles” ?

even you ain’t that dumb 

and that’s saying a lot   
 

*Huey » Yesterday, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:32 am

That's cool.  They will want to ban that next because it loads to fast.

Yeah, I know, but what the heck, If I lived in California, I'd be ordering up one of these and a bunch of clips lickety split!  

The best thing about stupid gun-banners is that occasionally we get some really inventive gun modifications that are work-arounds for things they stupidly tried to ban. My favorites being binary triggers - better than full-auto IMHO, FRT systems and folding pistol braces. 
 
 
 

Skans » Yesterday, 9:30 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:30 am

You're right about that.  Just to let you know, Mean Arms out of Woodstock GA actually makes an AR-15 that uses clips. The one in the video has a removable magazine that takes a clip, but the ones they make for California which do not have removable magazines can be fed from an ammo-clip. 

https://youtu.be/h69CU84eDl4

I was telling one of our local gunophobes that when a ban is proposed or has been implemented the smart manufactures come up with way to make a ban compliant firearm.  It seems that is how you defeat the removable magazine requirement.

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:34 am

  This disproves my point that they were marketed as “assault rifles” ?

even you ain’t that dumb 

and that’s saying a lot 

Let's start from the beginning of what you said, Mr. Kelly, since you are now intentionally being dishonest.  This discussion stemmed from you saying:

"Not a veteran of the Vietnam era (proudly)
but
The term Assault weapons was not a “made up term by the gunphobes”
It was how the AR was marketed by the gun manufacturers
It was a **** up on their part
The gun grabbers took the label and ran with it"

Now, you claim you were saying "this disproves my point they were being marketed as "assault rifles"?  I particularly love the quotes "assault rifles", as though you are quoting what you previously said.  But, I just posted what you previously said which was not "assault rifles" but "Assault weapons". 

Mr. Kelly, you just got jammed!
 
 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:34 am

  This disproves my point that they were marketed as “assault rifles” ?

even you ain’t that dumb 

and that’s saying a lot 

Are you getting the point they are discussing full autos because weapons like the AK and the M16? 

The AR 15 Sporter was semi automatic and not designed for the battlefield.

*Huey » Yesterday, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:47 am

dum dum, I said you did not want to take ,e on over this.  Dum Dum, those magazines are not talking about AR 15s.  They aren’t talking about M 16s and other AUTOMATIC Weapons.

Gomer, you are a **** more.

Still marketed them as assault rifles

nice straw grabbing Goober   

https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploa ... ag1985.jpg
 
 

*Huey » Yesterday, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:34 am

I was telling one of our local gunophobes that when a ban is proposed or has been implemented the smart manufactures come up with way to make a ban compliant firearm.  It seems that is how you defeat the removable magazine requirement.

Thumbhole stocks, grinded off bayonet lugs, US manufactured receivers and foreign imported parts kits, binary triggers, FRT systems, pistol braces, clips, I don't know if I could even begin to name them all.

For awhile there were also oil filter adapters and pseudo-silencer stuff - but BATFE came down on those hard. 

Still, eventually the gun banners will hire someone who actually knows firearms under a gun-banning administration, and that's when we will be in trouble. Watch out for this ****, Hogg. He's a real danger to the 2nd Amendment. 
 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:49 am

Still marketed them as assault rifles

nice straw grabbing Goober   

https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploa ... ag1985.jpg

Yes, idiot those were because guess what?  It is a **** M1 16.The weapon this thread is about is the Civilian Semi Automatic Weapon,

Right now you are too **** stupid to realize how stupid you look.

Skans » Yesterday, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:43 am

Let's start from the beginning of what you said, Mr. Kelly, since you are now intentionally being dishonest.  This discussion stemmed from you saying:

"Not a veteran of the Vietnam era (proudly)
but
The term Assault weapons was not a “made up term by the gunphobes”
It was how the AR was marketed by the gun manufacturers
It was a **** up on their part
The gun grabbers took the label and ran with it"

Now, you claim you were saying "this disproves my point they were being marketed as "assault rifles"?  I particularly love the quotes "assault rifles", as though you are quoting what you previously said.  But, I just posted what you previously said which was not "assault rifles" but "Assault weapons". 

Mr. Kelly, you just got jammed!

 in your quote from me I said “AR”  


  Zoom in on bottom right

https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploa ... ag1985.jpg