Liberal Forum

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:49 am

you were saying.......

PS.  I have taken the pledge to answer 

Since your questions and demands are satisfied, why don't you just do the same?

 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:51 am

Since your questions and demands are satisfied, why don't you just do the same?

They are not satisfied and you have yet to take the pledge.  The moment you do we can continue.

Tick Tock.

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:51 am

They are not satisfied and 

I show that you're lying and you take off for a month...

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 11:54 am

I show that you're lying and you take off for a month...

You got your definition of fully support.  Your turn.

For the dumbasses who edit and delete portions of others quotes:

If you support the the right of law abiding citizens to purchase a firearm, or as many firearms as suits them that would indicate full support.

WMDs are not firearms. Missles are not firearms.  RPGs and Bazookas are not firearms

Try again.

 

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:13 pm

You got your 

You are not owed anything for

defining your terms 


stipulating to objective fact

Nod.

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:34 pm

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:13 pm

You got your definition of fully support.  Your turn.

For the dumbasses who edit and delete portions of others quotes:

If you support the the right of law abiding citizens to purchase a firearm, or as many firearms as suits them that would indicate full support.

WMDs are not firearms. Missles are not firearms.  RPGs and Bazookas are not firearms

Try again
 

You are not owed anything for

defining your terms 


stipulating to objective fact

Nod.

 

FIFY

Try again.

If I felt I was really owned anything I would give a ****. I don't.  Objective facts are:

1.  You got the definition you asked for.

2.  You are running again.

3.  Until you stipulate you will answer questions on a one for one basis, I will not answer your questions.
 

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 12:42 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:42 pm

FIFY


 

You either agree or we don't proceed.

I don't want to go through this again.

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:47 pm

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 12:42 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:42 pm

FIFY



 

You either agree or we don't proceed.

I don't want to go through this again.

 

Agree with what?

You have yet to make a point.  And you will agree to answer questions on a one for one basis or take your *** beaten out the door.

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:54 pm

Agree with what?

 

34th time


You are not owed anything for


Defining your terms

or

Stipulating to objective fact.

 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 1:00 pm

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:54 pm

Agree with what?


 

34th time


You are not owed anything for


Defining your terms

or

Stipulating to objective fact.

 

 

You got the definition you DEMANDED.  Now what are you going to do with it?

Run!  It is what you do best.

So far you are still on the list as supporting the 2A.  Would you call the 1st amendment anachronistic because there was no internet, TV, or radio shows back then? 
 

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 1:07 pm

You got 

This will not be relitigated on a case by case basis.

 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 1:57 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 1:57 pm

This will not be relitigated on a case by case basis.

I accept your surrender.  Once again you speak cryptically, ambiguously and refuse to take a stand.

 

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 1:59 pm

I accept your surrender.  

You never stepped into the ring.


 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 2:01 pm

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 1:59 pm

I accept your surrender.

You never stepped into the ring.

No asshole, I did.  I posted MY definition of support for the 2A as requested.  YOU started to play your mindless word games.  You offer nothing but BS to evade have to go on record.

You DO NOT support the 2A.  Plain and simple.
 

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 2:04 pm

No asshole, I did.  I 

You can't unless you accept the basic rules.

You are not owed anything for

Defining your terms

Or

Stipulating to objective fact.

Nod

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 2:06 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 2:06 pm

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 2:04 pm

No asshole, I did.  I 

You can't unless you accept the basic rules.

You are not owed anything for

Defining your terms

Or

Stipulating to objective fact.

Nod

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We got a runner.


Stop with the theatrics.  If you can tell us without the **** why you do not support the 2A there is no need to bother me any longer.


 

Stop with the theatrics.  

That is exactly what we're doing.

Now nod, or take a hike.

@Huey  

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 2:22 pm

Stop with the theatrics.  

That is exactly what we're doing.

Now nod, or take a hike.

@Huey  

 

Sorry, there is too much ambiguous **** when dealing with you.  I will take the win, considering I was able to define what I think supporting the 2A means, without any stipulations.

You on the other hand were not able to make any case.

Huey » 27 Jan 2026, 2:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 2:24 pm

Sorry, there is too much ambiguous **** 

And she's off......again.
No, there isn't. 


You may ask me to define my terms.

 

Blackvegetable » 27 Jan 2026, 2:26 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 2:26 pm

And she's off......again.
No, there isn't. 

You may ask me to define my terms.

I'm good.  I Have already posted what I think supporting the 2A means.  DIdn't need terms, speculation, rules or questions to do so.

You have not posted anything about it Except to say it is anachronistic.