Epoch Times - 80% Of Americans Aged 17 to 24 Are Unfit For Military Service. And 55 Year Old AR-15 Fetishists Are Our Defense Against Tyranny?

[The5thHorseman]

You will note that people who squawk the loudest about guns know the very least about them.

Please shut the fuck up.

Thanks.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Air Force contract Rifles were not delivered until 64

They were ordered in 1962.

 

[The5thHorseman]

S

SP1 was a model designation from 63 when Model was first produced .

But "Sporter" was not.

 

[Oddball]

Please shut the fuck up.

Thanks.

Fuck you, ignoramus.

You know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about firearms, peckerhead.

 

[The5thHorseman]

S

SP1 was a model designation from 63 when Model was first produced .

Research the story of the "original" SP1s...

 

[The5thHorseman]

Fuck you, ignoramus.

You know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about firearms, peckerhead.

Fuck your opinions.

 

[Failzero]

Fuck your opinions.

Assault Weapon ( Select Fire ) not Features or General design

 

[Oddball]

Fuck your opinions.

Must've hit it pretty close to the mark to get The5thColumnist all riled up like that, huh?

 

[The5thHorseman]

Assault Weapon ( Select Fire ) not Features or General design

I don't care about the arbitrary shit.

Full auto isn't very desirable if you are starting with 210...

The point of its development had nothing to do with full auto, but everything to do with SCHV.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Must've hit it pretty close to the mark to get The5thColumnist all riled up like that, huh?


View attachment 772744

Your shtick doesn't vary.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was being sarcastic

Noted. I haven't interacted with you enough to pick up on that but I'm glad you were being sarcastic. Those on the left don't seem to understand or appreciate the concept of free speech or our constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

 

[Bell Huey]

You ran from the question last night.

I showed you that you were COMPLETELY wrong.

What the fuck did you "bust"?



I posted a piece of text which, were you not senile, you would have recognized from numerous past encounters. Being a fucking dumbass, you thought the embedded hyperlink led to the source.

Then you ran your mouth and shot yourself in the face...again.

That is not my problem.




No....I've posted the text of an article, and a screenshot of the article itself.

They don't 'classify' them as such.

You made that up.

What you posted last night did not show anything to support your argument of one design. What you posted last night had a said thast article was about the MILITARY Version and redirected you to the civilian model, the SP1.

Next time post the link you want me to see. Plus, that article did not support your argument.

The embedded link was the only present. It, and what you wanted me see, both destroyed your argement.

I posted, from the link that leads to the text, where the link from TODAY classifies them as civilian weapons. I posted the link and a screen shot. I'll do it again.

 

[Bell Huey]

The link I posted to you leads to this section. Note the category is Colt civilian models.

View attachment 772731

The5thHorseman

 

[Bell Huey]

In 1962, Colt sold its first order of what would be designated M16 to the Air Force.

Colt originally marketed the modified weapon as the "Comanche", until it was challenged by another manufacturer marketing a weapon under that name...it would become the "Sporter" in 1964.

IT was marketed in Jan of 64 as the Sporter. I gave you the ad a while back.

 

[TNHarley]

Noted. I haven't interacted with you enough to pick up on that but I'm glad you were being sarcastic. Those on the left don't seem to understand or appreciate the concept of free speech or our constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Yeah, I was just being a smartass because of the OP

 

[The5thHorseman]

What you posted last night did not show anything to support your argument of one design. What you posted last night had a said thast article was about the MILITARY Version and redirected you to the civilian model, the SP1.

Next time post the link you want me to see. Plus, that article did not support your argument.

The embedded link was the only present. It, and what you wanted me see, both destroyed your argement.

I posted, from the link that leads to the text, where the link from TODAY classifies them as civilian weapons. I posted the link and a screen shot. I'll do it again.

What you posted last night did not show anything to support your argument of one design

Yes....it does.....you have demonstrated your inability to distinguish singular from plural.

Next time post the link you want me to see.

It wasn't about you "seeing" the link. It was about you commenting on the text posted...

 

[The5thHorseman]

IT was marketed in Jan of 64 as the Sporter. I gave you the ad a while back.

That ad is asserted to be from 63....

But there are no dates confirming it.

We do have a lot of evidence demonstrating that it was originally marketed as the "Comanche".

 

[The5thHorseman]

The5thHorseman

Irrelevant.

 

[Bell Huey]

That ad is asserted to be from 63....

But there are no dates confirming it.

We do have a lot of evidence demonstrating that it was originally marketed as the "Comanche".

You are creating a strawman. No one is arguing it wasn't call the Comanche at one point.

 

[Bell Huey]

Irrelevant.

You streak continues. Every time you lose you claim the supporting evidence is irrelevant. Even one I post all the different parts in the SPorter you claim it is irrelevant.