Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 32 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

32 minutes ago

He meant firearm - not weed smoking device.

 

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Whose 

Wut?
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:26 pm

I own a shotgun.

What size shot do you use?   

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

22 Jan 2026, 10:10 am

For when @Vegas  gets here

This text is written at a Post-Graduate / Professional reading level. It is highly sophisticated, though it uses that sophistication to deliver a polemic (a strong verbal attack).

To understand this passage, a reader needs more than just a high vocabulary; they need a deep grasp of American constitutional law, Latin legal shorthand, and contemporary political slang.

Key Metrics
Grade Level: 16+ (Post-Graduate/Law Student)
Vocabulary Complexity: Very High
Tone: Satirical, Academic, and Vitriolic

Way above my paygrade BV..  I am sure if Vegas posts his mutiple choice question in reply to this thread he'll be saying you ran and hid.
Vegasna needs some Vegasil..
 
 

Vegas » 22 Jan 2026, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2026, 12:15 pm

It's a narcissist thing. He needs to feel intellectually superior, because he knows he is dumber than a box of rocks.

And the mirror reflects..

BV is on a plane that none of us can board.  
 

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

22 Jan 2026, 10:10 am

For when @Vegas  gets here

This text is written at a Post-Graduate / Professional reading level. It is highly sophisticated, though it uses that sophistication to deliver a polemic (a strong verbal attack).

To understand this passage, a reader needs more than just a high vocabulary; they need a deep grasp of American constitutional law, Latin legal shorthand, and contemporary political slang.

Key Metrics
Grade Level: 16+ (Post-Graduate/Law Student)
Vocabulary Complexity: Very High
Tone: Satirical, Academic, and Vitriolic

Bump

:die:  
 

JohnnyYou » 22 Jan 2026, 5:35 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2026, 5:35 pm

And the mirror reflects..

BV is on a plane that none of us can board.

:rofl:  

Blackvegetable » Today, 4:54 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:54 pm

Whose turn to explain to JuCo?

It ain't you, that's for sure...
 

Beekeeper » 22 Jan 2026, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2026, 7:19 pm

You can't even 

I can already conclude that it is not worth reading.

Blackvegetable » Today, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:06 am

As his legions of Hatahs are 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.

Come get my guns traitor. Stop running your goddamned *** mouth!

Trump has the world flying higher than Ozzie Osbourne ever was..

youtu.be/qmkJSHp3GOs?si=lfXhHCiwIk3oYOvW

Maka post completely on topic and get banished to PG

Huey » 23 Jan 2026, 8:08 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2026, 8:08 am

Maka post completely on topic and get banished to PG

That was you....wanna see?

You have one chance to make the case that the post in question had anything to do with the point of the OP.

Make it count....

Blackvegetable » 23 Jan 2026, 8:41 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2026, 8:41 am

That was you....wanna see?

You have one chance to make the case that the post in question had anything to do with the point of the OP.

Make it count....

I'll try.  It is difficult to make sense of that word salad.

But I will try.  Your thread is talking about the idiocy of the 2nd amendment and your OP discusses Bruen.  The point being that although, on paper, Bruen would make it slightly easier in NY to get a permit, shootings have DROPPED in NYC.  

In sum, it does not sound like IDIOCY to me.
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:21 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:21 pm

I can already conclude that it is not worth reading.

Being a DICKHEAD is your mantra!!

Was math invented or discovered??

Huey » 23 Jan 2026, 8:44 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2026, 8:44 am

I'll try.  It is difficult to make sense of that word salad.

But I will try.  You thread is talking about the idiocy of tye 2nd amendment and your OP discusses Bruen.  The point being that although, on paper, Bruen would make it slightly easier in NY to get a permit, shootings have DROPPED in NYC.  

In sum, it does not sound like IDIOCY to me.

I'll try.  It is difficult to make sense of that word salad.

 For you.....Here's why


This text is written at a Post-Graduate / Professional reading level. It is highly sophisticated, though it uses that sophistication to deliver a polemic (a strong verbal attack).

To understand this passage, a reader needs more than just a high vocabulary; they need a deep grasp of American constitutional law, Latin legal shorthand, and contemporary political slang.


Let's get real for a minute.....can't get more "totes not your jam"...

But I will try.  You thread is talking about the idiocy of tye 2nd amendment and your OP discusses Bruen.

You failed.......Miserably

Yet BV still can't or wont define the term woman

Blackvegetable » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

 For you.....Here's why

This text is written at a Post-Graduate / Professional reading level. It is highly sophisticated, though it uses that sophistication to deliver a polemic (a strong verbal attack).

To understand this passage, a reader needs more than just a high vocabulary; they need a deep grasp of American constitutional law, Latin legal shorthand, and contemporary political slang.

Let's get real for a minute.....can't get more "totes not your jam"...

You failed.......Miserably

There's only ONE THING you need to understand Constitutional law, asshole- an interpretation of the actual definition of words during the era it was written, not some legal mumbo-jumbo that you deem to be sophisticated "Latin legal shorthand". You see, this is where your side, the LEFTISTS, fail miserably, and that being your vapid attempts to turn a sow's ear into a purse when there is no purse to be made. Being creative with EXISTING TEXTS doesn't make you "smart" or "educated", it makes you a **** IDIOT that people see through inside of 2 seconds.

Let that sink in for a minute, ASSHOLE and then ANSWER THE **** QUESTION- 

Was math invented or discovered??

TRY hard to put some sophisticated "Latin legal shorthand" to that SIMPLE QUESION so I can kick you *** again!!

       

Blackvegetable » 23 Jan 2026, 8:54 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2026, 8:54 am

 For you.....Here's why


This text is written at a Post-Graduate / Professional reading level. It is highly sophisticated, though it uses that sophistication to deliver a polemic (a strong verbal attack).

To understand this passage, a reader needs more than just a high vocabulary; they need a deep grasp of American constitutional law, Latin legal shorthand, and contemporary political slang.


Let's get real for a minute.....can't get more "totes not your jam"...


You failed.......Miserably

 

LMAO!  

You are always ambiguous so  you can't get nailed down on a stance.
 

Huey » 23 Jan 2026, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2026, 9:23 am

LMAO!  

You are always ambiguous so  

What do you consider ambiguous about it?

AI never mentions "ambiguity"