Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 22 Jan 2026, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2026, 10:06 am

As his legions of Hatahs is painfully aware, Master Vegetable has been unstinting in his contempt for Bruen and Heller, two shibboleths supporting the straw temple of The Individual Right...

Since the author of the latter was found smothered under a fat kid, erect but forever breathless, the burden  of generating the supportive pap for ammosexuals was placed on the intellectually narrow, child bearing shoulders of Justice Free Ride Thomas....with the predictably hilarious result of Bruen.

It has become a sport since, within the junior circuits, to put SCOTUS on a spot obliging a defense of many of the absurd consequences of Free Ride's legacy, as in Rahimi. In that instance, his fellow conservatives hung him out to dry, leaving him alone to pen a churlish dissent.

Now Hawaii is back, and the risible flimsiness of Heller and Bruen are being highlighted.

https://www.vox.com/politics/475810/sup ... pez-hawaii

The Supreme Court’s Republican majority spent much of Tuesday morning trying to figure out how two mutually exclusive principles can both be true at the same time. One principle is that all Second Amendment cases must be judged using a bespoke legal rule that only applies to the Second Amendment. The other principle is that the right to bear arms must not be treated differently than other constitutional rights. Four years ago, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Republican justices struck down a century-old New York law that required anyone who wishes to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” before they could obtain a license allowing them to do so. On Tuesday, the Court heard Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to a Hawaii state law that appears to have been designed intentionally to sabotage Bruen.

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...