Liberal Forum

ROG62 » 10 Jun 2025, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 8:02 am

like lusting after a...



and ending up with one of these...

You will never, ever, be funny.

I have NEVER cared for Porsches.Or XKEs, or 'vettes.

I like Astons, but don't want to marry a mechanic.


 

Blackvegetable » 10 Jun 2025, 7:37 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 7:37 am

unless one took the time to explain the mysteries of the female orgasm, that kid will convince himself he's a love god because he got off, and they didn't complain.

The reader may have picked up that trick from "Day of The Jackal".

Clearly, you never did a GILF when you were younger. The GILF figures she's got you for the entire weekend. You WILL learn how to make her orgasm. 

You and @*HooooeyVagina can lock yourselves in a room for a decade, fondle each other and guns, exchange pillow war stories talk and pretend you're being spooned by Pete Hegseth.

You are always offering your "expert" gun advice, we just figured you cared. 

I don't know why you quoted the excerpt you did from a blog.  Regardless, I didn't find anything factually wrong with what the blogger said, nor did I find it very informative.  I know exactly what an M16 is, what a SP1 and an SP1 (slab-side) Carbine is, because I actually have the latter in my arsenal. 

The Blogger makes it very clear that he knows the difference between an M16 and various non-M16 AR's "Needless to say the above excludes buying an original M16 because $23,000 is not what I consider “cost effective”. Also waiting a year or more to take possession of a rifle is not attractive- not to mention the various legal considerations that come with machinegun ownership. Luckily, there are several semi-automatic versions of the Vietnam era M16 which are much less expensive and easier to obtain. However, a semi-auto rifle is not an actual US Military issued M16 and will always be just a replica." 
 

@Skans  ?


Are you OK?


We won't see @*HooooeyVagina again....

Blackvegetable » 10 Jun 2025, 8:23 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 8:23 am

@Skans  ?

Are you OK?

We won't see @*HooooeyVagina again....

I'm actually disappointed in you that you wouldn't even try my little pink-gun test. 

See, if you did that to me, I would have looked at the little test as something fun to do.  Not you, you're too scared of making a mistake.  Do you really think I would have chided you that badly if you at least tried? ****, if you got one or two of those questions right, I might have given you full credit.  Heck, you can even use AI and Google to help you out with it!
 

Skans » 10 Jun 2025, 8:23 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 8:23 am

Clearly, you never did a GILF when you were younger. The GILF figures she's got you for the entire weekend. You WILL learn how to make her orgasm. 

You are always offering your "expert" gun advice, we just figured you cared. 

I don't know why you quoted the excerpt you did from a blog.  Regardless, I didn't find anything factually wrong with what the blogger said, nor did I find it very informative.  I know exactly what an M16 is, what a SP1 and an SP1 (slab-side) Carbine is, because I actually have the latter in my arsenal. 

The Blogger makes it very clear that he knows the difference between an M16 and various non-M16 AR's "Needless to say the above excludes buying an original M16 because $23,000 is not what I consider “cost effective”. Also waiting a year or more to take possession of a rifle is not attractive- not to mention the various legal considerations that come with machinegun ownership. Luckily, there are several semi-automatic versions of the Vietnam era M16 which are much less expensive and easier to obtain. However, a semi-auto rifle is not an actual US Military issued M16 and will always be just a replica."

 

The GILF figures she's got you for the entire weekend. You WILL learn how

I saw Kingpin.....I'd rather be schooled by hot chicks.

I don't know why you quoted the excerpt you did from a blog.

Because I have no reason to believe he is any less informed than a pair of ammosexuals cruising the innertubes. 

Colt sold nearly identical versions of the M16 to the public during the Vietnam War generically referred to as the “AR-15 Sporter”. These vintage semi-auto versions of the military M16 are now generally referred to as the “SP1”.

This is exactly what I told @*HooooeyVagina YEARS ago. It explains his ATF citation. It confirms "his" wiki citation.

And it totally atomizes his narrative version of a "separate design".

I have never touched an AR-15, and yet by READING I know more about its development than you two *** daisychained.
 

ROG62 » 10 Jun 2025, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 8:02 am

like lusting after a...



and ending up with one of these...

Ah, come on, VW's are just ugly Porches - same Germans building them with same parts!     
 
 

Skans » 10 Jun 2025, 8:30 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 8:30 am

I'm actually disappointed in you that you wouldn't even try my little pink-gun test. 

See, if you did that to me, I would have looked at the little test as something fun to do.  Not you, you're too scared of making a mistake.  Do you really think I would have chided you that badly if you at least tried? ****, if you got one or two of those questions right, I might have given you full credit.  Heck, you can even use AI and Google to help you out with it!

What do you find "interesting" about this gun?

You asked me, and I answered.


 

Blackvegetable » 10 Jun 2025, 8:33 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 8:33 am

I saw Kingpin.....I'd rather be schooled by hot chicks.

LOL - not me. 

Colt sold nearly identical versions of the M16 to the public during the Vietnam War generically referred to as the “AR-15 Sporter”. These vintage semi-auto versions of the military M16 are now generally referred to as the “SP1”.

Why do you say stuff like this?  It isn't true. Many of the earlier Colt semi-auto rifles had a number of hidden differences which made them quite different from an M16. 

• The upper receiver was missing an internally milled groove
• The push-pin holes were misaligned and a different size from the M16 - made it difficult to replace the upper receiver with an M16 upper
• Different bolt carrier - wouldn't allow full-auto fire even if you milled the lower to accept the auto-sear
• Different fire control parts
• Different milling on the lower receiver.

Then, in the 1980's, Colt blind-pinned "blocks" in their lower receivers so that you couldn't use a DIAS to convert it to full auto. 

You would have sounded smarter if you said "AR's built on modern receiver-sets are much closer to the M4 (modern M16) rifles used by the Military than were the early Colt semi-auto rifles".  Colt actually went to substantial lengths to make sure that the AR's they built were rather difficult to make into M16's.

This is exactly what I told @*HooooeyVagina YEARS ago. It explains his ATF citation. It confirms "his" wiki citation.

I don't care what you THINK it does. I'm telling you the actual facts here. 

    And it totally atomizes his narrative version of a "separate design".

They were separately designed.  Colt actually redesigned the upper and lower receivers to prevent them from using M16 parts.  Some work-arounds came much later, but they were not manufactured by Colt. 

I have never touched an AR-15, and yet by READING I know more about its development than you two *** daisychained.

You really don't.  In fact, you really don't even have a clue.  And, I can tell that you've only ever read about the AR-15, you've never handled one, never disassembled them and know next to nothing about the different variants and manufacturers.  

PS: - This is why you didn't take my pink gun test, isn't it. 
 

Blackvegetable » 10 Jun 2025, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 8:37 am

You asked me, and I answered.

You still refuse to take my little test. It really was designed to allow for a more interesting discussion with you about some things.

However, your fear of even attempting it tells me much more about you as a person than anything it would have told me about your knowledge of guns. 
 

Skans » 10 Jun 2025, 8:51 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 8:51 am

LOL - not me. 

Why do you say stuff like this?  It isn't true. Many of the earlier Colt semi-auto rifles had a number of hidden differences which made them quite different from an M16. 

• The upper receiver was missing an internally milled groove
• The push-pin holes were misaligned and a different size from the M16 - made it difficult to replace the upper receiver with an M16 upper
• Different bolt carrier - wouldn't allow full-auto fire even if you milled the lower to accept the auto-sear
• Different fire control parts
• Different milling on the lower receiver.

Then, in the 1980's, Colt blind-pinned "blocks" in their lower receivers so that you couldn't use a DIAS to convert it to full auto. 

You would have sounded smarter if you said "AR's built on modern receiver-sets are much closer to the M4 (modern M16) rifles used by the Military than were the early Colt semi-auto rifles".  Colt actually went to substantial lengths to make sure that the AR's they built were rather difficult to make into M16's.

I don't care what you THINK it does. I'm telling you the actual facts here. 

They were separately designed.  Colt actually redesigned the upper and lower receivers to prevent them from using M16 parts.  Some work-arounds came much later, but they were not manufactured by Colt. 

You really don't.  In fact, you really don't even have a clue.  And, I can tell that you've only ever read about the AR-15, you've never handled one, never disassembled them and know next to nothing about the different variants and manufacturers.  

PS: - This is why you didn't take my pink gun test, isn't it.

I have told him all of this before. Numerous time.  If posted the design changes.  He is so deep into it he can never admit he was wrong.

*Huey » 10 Jun 2025, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 9:07 am

I have told him all of this before. Numerous time.  If posted the design changes.  He is so deep into it he can never admit he was wrong.

He's so convinced he's right. It's laughable. Colt did everything to appease gun banners and ATF at the time with their non-milspec AR's.  That's why Bushmaster eventually put a big dent in their business. And, also why thousands of companies can now crank out AR receivers.  This might have something to do with the patent expiring as well. I don't recall if/when Colt's AR patent expired. 
 

Skans » 10 Jun 2025, 9:17 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 9:17 am

*Huey » 10 Jun 2025, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 9:07 am

I have told him all of this before. Numerous time.  If posted the design changes.  He is so deep into it he can never admit he was wrong.

He's so convinced he's right. It's laughable. Colt did everything to appease gun banners and ATF at the time with their non-milspec AR's.  That's why Bushmaster eventually put a big dent in their business. And, also why thousands of companies can now crank out AR receivers.  This might have something to do with the patent expiring as well. I don't recall if/when Colt's AR patent expired. 
 

 

I think it was 76 or 77.  

I even posted the a link to the original BATF classification letter on the Sporter.  

*Huey » 10 Jun 2025, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 9:07 am

I have told him all of this before. Numerous time.  If posted the design changes.  He is so deep into it he can never admit he was wrong.

Also, I remember my first AR was a Colt SP1 Carbine.  I wanted an A2 upper on it with the forward assist.  Something about the forward assist just looked really cool to me back then.  So, I bought a Colt-manufactured A2 upper at a gun show.  The gunshow guy asked what I was doing with it.  I told him I planed on putting it on my SP1.  He said, oh, well, then you're going to need a set of offset pins, and a new M16 bolt carrier with the serrations milled in them to make the forward assist functional.  More money!

I have since returned the Sp1 to its original slab-side configuration, as it is more valuable as an early Colt AR than as some kind of Franken-gun.  
 
 

Blackvegetable » 10 Jun 2025, 7:37 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 7:37 am

Skans » 10 Jun 2025, 7:06 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 7:06 am

Now, that's not true.  Who is the 16 year old virgin girl more likely to listen to when it comes to "sex"?  The 18 year old male virgin who read several books about it and then wants to pretend he's an expert on having sex?  Or the 18 year old guy who has fondled his way into having sex with 2 teenage girls a MILF and 2 GILFS.

Who is more of an expert on firearms?  The Gun-Jesus who has hands-on experience fondling and taking apart thousands of firearms, or some guy who read some books about firearms?  Oh, and truthfully tell me, you had to Google "Gun-Jesus", didn't you,

Or the 18 year old guy who has fondled his way into having sex with 2 teenage girls a MILF and 2 GILFS.

unless one took the time to explain the mysteries of the female orgasm, that kid will convince himself he's a love god because he got off, and they didn't complain.

The reader may have picked up that trick from "Day of The Jackal".

The Gun-Jesus who has hands-on experience fondling and taking apart thousands of firearms, or some guy who read some books about firearms?  Oh, and truthfully tell me, you had to Google "Gun-Jesus", didn't you,

You actually think I care enough.

You and @*HooooeyVagina can lock yourselves in a room for a decade, fondle each other and guns, exchange pillow war stories talk and pretend you're being spooned by Pete Hegseth.

"Design" will continue to be singular.....and citations will persist in their hostility to your narrative.


Interestingly, civilian ownership of semi-automatic versions of the AR platform go almost as far back as the military adoption of the system. Colt sold nearly identical versions of the M16 to the public during the Vietnam War generically referred to as the “AR-15 Sporter”. These vintage semi-auto versions of the military M16 are now generally referred to as the “SP1”. The SP1 looked very similar to the M16 but had some small differences in construction, as well as different markings on the receiver. An original Vietnam era SP1 would be as close as legally possible to owning a real M16.

https://modernmilitaryhistory.com/2020/ ... roduction/

 

I will take the L when you do the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ary_models

And the civilian models:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ian_models

Here is the challenge again:

Now, to end this.  Using the link I gave you years ago and you have misunderstood ever since, do the following.  If you answer correctly, showing you are wrong,  I will take Monday thru Friday off.  If you prove me wrong, I will take a month off.

1.  Post what list the AR 15 semi automatic sports rifle is listed in.  Military or civilian.

2.  Post the year range that the AR 15 Semi Auto sports rifle was standard issue in the military to infantryman.

If you answer honestly both questions I will take the 5 days off. If you show the dates the Sporter was standard issue for the military and that t is on the military list I will take the Month of Sep off.

*Huey » 10 Jun 2025, 9:22 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 9:22 am

I think it was 76 or 77.  

I even posted the a link to the original BATF classification letter on the Sporter.

Oh, now that's a good link.  Still got it?
 

*Huey » 10 Jun 2025, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 9:23 am

I will take the L when you do the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ary_models

And the civilian models:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ian_models

Here is the challenge again:

Now, to end this.  Using the link I gave you years ago and you have misunderstood ever since, do the following.  If you answer correctly, showing you are wrong,  I will take Monday thru Friday off.  If you prove me wrong, I will take a month off.

1.  Post what list the AR 15 semi automatic sports rifle is listed in.  Military or civilian.

2.  Post the year range that the AR 15 Semi Auto sports rifle was standard issue in the military to infantryman.

If you answer honestly both questions I will take the 5 days off. If you show the dates the Sporter was standard issue for the military and that t is on the military list I will take the Month of Sep off.

LOL!  Do you even really need the lists to answer this?
 

Skans » 10 Jun 2025, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 9:25 am

Oh, now that's a good link.  Still got it?

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... civilians/


Scroll down until you see the embedded  PDF.  Thats the letter.

Skans » 10 Jun 2025, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 9:27 am

LOL!  Do you even really need the lists to answer this?

Nope.    

*Huey » 10 Jun 2025, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jun 2025, 9:28 am

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... civilians/

Scroll down until you see the embedded  PDF.  Thats the letter.

Thanks!
 

Skans » 09 Jun 2025, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2025, 4:37 pm

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2025, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2025, 3:00 pm

You wouldn't..

You'd be issued an apron and a butter baller..

So, here's a little test for you.  What do you find "interesting" about this gun?


 
Let me make this a bit easier for you:

1. Does it shoot lead bullets?  Or, Airsoft pellets?
2. If it shoots lead, what caliber is it? If it shoots Airsoft pellets, what caliber?
3. Is it an AOW?  SBR? TOY? Non-NFA Pistol? Carbine? or Rifle?
4. How were the receivers manufactured?
5. What is the slanted black line just above the trigger for (Ooooo, this one's tricky)
6. What is the circle just above the pink pistol grip a part of?
7  What is technically "missing" from the horizontal and vertical slots on the blue butstock?
8. Can the stock be folded or is it fixed?

 

1.   Lead bullets.
2.  22
3. Rifle
4.  I am guessing 3d print.
5. Just Guessing..trigger adjustment 
6.  Selector switch 
7.  Sights
8.  Looks like it could be folded.