Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

22 minutes ago

Huey » Today, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:47 pm

Dudette, you really do not want to take that guy on concerning firearms.  ****, I can take you.  He will break you.

In the Moro Rebellion, the Tausug Moro Muslim juramentados in suicide attacks continued to charge against American soldiers even after being shot. Panglima Hassan in the Hassan uprising was shot dozens of times before he was killed; however, other accounts suggest that he survived and was cared for by his relative, Panglima Bandahala ibn Sattiya Munoh, a trusted adviser and close family member of the Sultan. As a result, Americans elected to phase out the .38 caliber Colt M1892 revolver in favor of .45 caliber sidearms to continue their fight against the Moros. This led to the issuance of the Military version of the Colt Model 1878 revolver, dubbed the 1878/1902 "Alaskan" (a collectors term only), chambered in .45 Long Colt, and later the issuance of the M1909 revolver, chambered in .45 Colt (which would later again be rechambered in the weaker .45 ACP as the M1917).[71] This contributed to the development and adoption of the .45 ACP M1911 semi-automatic pistol on March 29, 1911, after further weapon testing during the rebellion, beginning over 70 years of service by the pistol and cartridge in the US military.[72]

Not a hand cannon.  I provided you with examples of a hand cannon as did squatchman.  So you are saying he is wrong.

Oh, by the way, I have answered your questions.  You refuse to acknowledge that and you refuse to answer questions.  Now, perhaps, instead of demanding why one "needs" a particular firearm you can tell us what firearms you think we should own.

PS.  Using your logic you would have to ban the 9 mm
 
 

Huey » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

24 minutes ago

I made a typo.  My bad.  Next, it still is not an assault rifle.  YOU are running from that, Puss.

what is your point? I have 7 rifles of the type that VA is going to ban.

Huey » Today, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:12 pm

No **** sherlock.  Although I just sold the AR 15 we inherited from my brother in law and about 35 loaded magazines.  He was a prepper.  I am not,  Never interested in owning one after firing a real assault rifle.

Which rifle do you own that is a "real assault rifle" 
 

*Roshambo » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

what is your point? I have 7 rifles of the type that VA is going to ban.

Which rifle do you own that is a "real assault rifle"

I have never owned a real assault rifle.  If you have have 7 select fire rifles, that fire an intermediate cartridge, and capable automatic or burst you must have some money.

i did real assault rifles in the Army.

Huey » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

I have never owned a real assault rifle.  If you have have 7 select fire rifles, that fire an intermediate cartridge, and capable automatic or burst you must have some money.

i did real assault rifles in the Army.

I told you I have I have 7 rifles of the type that VA is going to ban.
My words, Nod. 


Banned Rifles

• AR-15 platforms (e.g., Colt AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, DPMS Panther)
• AK-47 platforms (e.g., Kalashnikov USA, WASR-10, Norinco MAK-90)
• Other Semi-Automatic Rifles: Armalite AR-180, FN SCAR, IWI Tavor, Kel-Tec Sub-2000, DSA SA58, Barrett M107A1, and Bushmaster ACR.
• Semi-Auto Versions of Military Rifles: SIG MCX, HK 416, and Robinson Armament XCR.

 

Huey » 57 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

57 minutes ago

Not a hand cannon.  I provided you with examples of a hand cannon as did squatchman.  So you are saying he is wrong.

Oh, by the way, I have answered your questions.  You refuse to acknowledge that and you refuse to answer questions.  Now, perhaps, instead of demanding why one "needs" a particular firearm you can tell us what firearms you think we should own.

PS.  Using your logic you would have to ban the 9 mm

So you are saying he is wrong.

Argue with the history.

Again.

Oh, by the way, I have answered your questions.

:rofl:  

Using your logic you would have to ban the 9 mm

Why are you yapping about "logic"?

Blackvegetable » Today, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:47 pm

Skiing isn't an Eskimo thing...they use dogs...

Do Eskimos ski?

So do Saudis..

Exactly, you lied…

 

Blackvegetable » Today, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:45 pm

Why was Judge Kaplan obliged to opine?

**** feefeeboi…you’re batting 1000 in the epic fail department…
 

Huey » Today, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:16 pm

According to @Blackvegetable  the Colt 1911 would be banned because it was designed for combat:

So was the M911 and are LEO weapons included? OMG!!! *GASPS*
Alabama:  Glock 17 and Glock 45 (9mm)
 Alaska:  Glock 17 (9mm) (MOS version, with Holosun optic)
 Arizona:  Glock 17 (9mm)
 Arkansas:  Glock 17 (9mm)
 California:  Smith & Wesson M&P40 (.40 S&W) [Post-publication, January 2026 update: Smith & Wesson M&P9 2.0, with Holosun 508T optic, (9mm)]
 Colorado:  Shadow Systems XR920 (9mm) (with Trijicon RMR optic)
 Connecticut:  Glock 45 (9mm)
 Delaware:  Sig Sauer P320 (9mm)
 Florida:  Glock 45 (9mm) (MOS version)
 Georgia:  Glock 45 (9mm) (with Trijicon SRS optic)
 Hawaii:  (Dept. of Law Enforcement, Sheriff Division) Sig Sauer P320 (9mm)
 Idaho:  Glock 19 (9mm) (MOS version, with Holosun HE508T optic)
 Illinois:  Glock 22 (.40 S&W)*
 Indiana:  Sig Sauer P227 (.45 ACP) [Post-publication, February 2026 update: Sig Sauer P320, 9mm, with Streamlight TLR-1 and Sig Sauer red dot]
 Iowa:  Smith & Wesson M&P40 (.40 S&W)
 Kansas:  Glock 17 (9mm)
 Kentucky:  Glock 17 (9mm)
 Louisiana:  Glock 17 (9mm)
 Maine:  Heckler & Koch HK45 LEM (.45 ACP)
 Maryland:  Glock 22 (.40 S&W) [Post-publication, July 2025 update: Glock 17 (9mm)]
 Massachusetts:  Sig Sauer P320 (9mm) (with Sig Sauer Romeo 1 optic)
 Michigan:  Glock 17 (9mm) [Post-publication, April 2025 update: Sig Sauer M18, 9mm, with Romeo 17 optic and Surefire X300 Turbo light]
 Minnesota:  Glock 17 (9mm)
 Mississippi:  Glock 17 (9mm) (MOS version)
 Missouri:  Glock 17 (9mm)
 Montana:  Smith & Wesson M&P9 2.0 (9mm)
 Nebraska:  Glock 45 (9mm)
 Nevada:  Sig Sauer P320 (9mm)
 New Hampshire:  Smith & Wesson M&P45 (.45 ACP) [Post-publication, November 2025 update: Glock 45 MOS with Aimpoint COA and Glock 43X MOS with Aimpoint COA (9mm)]
 New Jersey:  Glock 19 (9mm)
 New Mexico:  Smith & Wesson M&P9 2.0 (9mm) [Post-publication, October 2025 update: Smith & Wesson M&P9 2.0 Metal Carry Comp, 9mm]
 New York:  Glock 21 (.45 ACP) [Post-publication, November 2025 update: Glock 47 (9mm), Aimpoint Acro P2, and Streamlight TLR-7 HL-X light]
 North Carolina:  Sig Sauer P320 (9mm)
 North Dakota:  Sig Sauer P320 (9mm)
 Ohio:  Sig Sauer P320 Pro (9mm)
 Oklahoma:  Sig Sauer P320 Pro (9mm)
 Oregon:  Smith & Wesson M&P9 2.0 (9mm)
 Pennsylvania:  Walther PDP (9mm) (Compact, and F-Series, with Aimpoint ACRO P-2 optic)
 Rhode Island:  Sig Sauer P320 (9mm)
 South Carolina:  Glock 17M (9mm)
 South Dakota:  Sig Sauer P226 (.40 S&W) [Post-publication, May 2026 update: FN 509 (9mm), with optic and weapon light from unknown manufacturers]
 Tennessee:  Glock 45 (9mm) (MOS version)
 Texas:  Sig Sauer P320 (9mm)
 Utah:  Glock 17 (9mm)
 Vermont:  Smith & Wesson M&P40 (.40 S&W) [Post-publication, January 2026 update: Glock 45 Gen 5 MOS for general issue and Glock 48X MOS for special issue will replace Sig Sauer P320 and S&W Shield  (9mm)]Virginia:  Sig Sauer P320 (.357 Sig)
 Washington:  Smith & Wesson M&P9 2.0 (9mm)
 West Virginia:  Glock 17 (9mm) [Post-publication, November 2025 update: Shadow Systems XR920 and CR920X  (9mm)]Wisconsin:  Glock 17 (9mm)
 Wyoming:  Sig Sauer P320 (9mm)
 *Reported April 2025: Changing to Glock 45 (9mm) with optic

AAAACKKKK!!!
 
 

Huey » Yesterday, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:05 pm

As many know the lying democrat Gov of Va signed an AR ban that goes into effect 1 Jul.  It bans not based function but appearance.  I own one of these:


It is banned based solely on appearance.  DOesn't fire 223 or 556.  It is a **** shotgun.

good

ROG62 » Yesterday, 10:05 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:05 pm

she apparently believes if it looks and acts like a duck…  

what you think is funny

https://youtu.be/gD_r3D6AU_4?si=wU_C14JT2XiUDqSq

Blackvegetable » Today, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:46 pm

The 1911 was developed specifically to knock down drug crazed Moros..

That more powerful handguns may have been developed doesn't change the ambition of the original designer.

  That doesn't make it a hand cannon.
 It only says it can knock down people,which is not what it would actually be doing. The military used and still only uses ball ammunition. No expanding bullets. The 1911 was just punching .45" holes in guys. Not exactly "knock down power." There is no such thing in the service calibers( .38,9mm,.40 s&w or .45 acp.) 
. Also the .45 acp isn't exactly a fast round. Right around 1,000 fps. Not even supersonic. And being a heavy bullet it sheds speed and trajectory almost right after leaving the muzzle.
 A sidearm isn't your primary weapon in a battle.
Your rifle is. The pistol is your last ditch self defense weapon. Meant to hopefully save your ***.
  The 1911 is a fine firearm for self defense in todays world still. A lot of people carry them. With hollow points within 20 yards or so(most self defense shootings occur within 7 yards) it can get the job done. It's soft shooting,holds 8+1 rounds hurls a 240 gr. bullet 980 fps that digs in to about 12 to 14 inches in gel tests with factory ammo,reliable,accurate to a fault and is easy to shoot. 
  Plus they're quite handsome guns.
 I myself own 2 1911s and have shot them quite a bit.​
A Springfield Armory Garrison chambered in .45 acp and a Colt Delta Elite chambered in 10mm. auto. 

 
 

jerrab » Today, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:13 pm

what you think is funny

https://youtu.be/gD_r3D6AU_4?si=wU_C14JT2XiUDqSq

why would you think I would find this funny? 

are you all there? WTF…  

*Roshambo » Yesterday, 4:30 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 4:30 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 4:26 pm

I have never owned a real assault rifle.  If you have have 7 select fire rifles, that fire an intermediate cartridge, and capable automatic or burst you must have some money.

i did real assault rifles in the Army.

I told you I have I have 7 rifles of the type that VA is going to ban.
My words, Nod. 


Banned Rifles

• AR-15 platforms (e.g., Colt AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, DPMS Panther)
• AK-47 platforms (e.g., Kalashnikov USA, WASR-10, Norinco MAK-90)
• Other Semi-Automatic Rifles: Armalite AR-180, FN SCAR, IWI Tavor, Kel-Tec Sub-2000, DSA SA58, Barrett M107A1, and Bushmaster ACR.
• Semi-Auto Versions of Military Rifles: SIG MCX, HK 416, and Robinson Armament XCR.

 

 

good for you.  

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 5:00 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 5:00 pm

Argue with the history.

Again.

 

Why are you yapping about "logic"?

You lose and you don’t answer questions. 
 

jerra » wrote:

03 Feb 1970, 6:33 am

Huey » 30 May 2026, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑

30 May 2026, 1:05 pm

As many know the lying democrat Gov of Va signed an AR ban that goes into effect 1 Jul.  It bans not based function but appearance.  I own one of these:


It is banned based solely on appearance.  DOesn't fire 223 or 556.  It is a **** shotgun.

good

 

By all means, share your expertise of the subject and explain why it is good.

Huey » 46 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

46 minutes ago

good for you.

More on the way 
 

jerrab » Yesterday, 7:58 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:58 pm

good

No. It's not.
It's an attack on the constitution. 
No different than losing any other right contained in the Constitution such as voting or freedom of speech.
  For example that Pretti dude that was shot by ICE. He believed in all of the Constitutional rights. Including the 2nd amendment.
  He got killed by scared little **** that don't. He should actually be the poster boy for gun advocates. He carried a gun while protesting. The guy was exercising 2 rights.
The right to self defense and the right to protest. He gave his life defending them.
  You're not going to get guns banned. That cat has left the bag. They're out there in the hands of criminals.I want to have something that can at least compete with whatever a criminal has if or when he shows up. That's going to be an assault style rifle that holds more than 10 rounds. Same goes for my every day carry gun. The police aren't going to protect you and that bad guy doesn't care about laws already. He ain't turning in his AR or AK because they're banned.                                                                            And when this "law" hits the Supreme Court on appeal and it will,it should be struck down unanimously. If not some serious thought needs to be given to removing dissenters. Because if they go along with this what other rights would they be willing to put limits on?
 Same goes for the other side. 
  People aren't voting for the good of America anymore it seems. They're voting for extremists for their side,damn the constitution. 
. Pretty sad state of affairs we've found ourselves in actually.
  
  
 
  
 

Squatchman » 30 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

30 minutes ago

No. It's not.
It's an attack on the constitution. 
No different than losing any other right contained in the Constitution such as voting or freedom of speech.
  For example that Pretti dude that was shot by ICE. He believed in all of the Constitutional rights. Including the 2nd amendment.
  He got killed by scared little **** that don't. He should actually be the poster boy for gun advocates. He carried a gun while protesting. The guy was exercising 2 rights.
The right to self defense and the right to protest. He gave his life defending them.
  You're not going to get guns banned. That cat has left the bag. They're out there in the hands of criminals.I want to have something that can at least compete with whatever a criminal has if or when he shows up. That's going to be an assault style rifle that holds more than 10 rounds. Same goes for my every day carry gun. The police aren't going to protect you and that bad guy doesn't care about laws already. He ain't turning in his AR or AK because they're banned.                                                                            And when this "law" hits the Supreme Court on appeal and it will,it should be struck down unanimously. If not some serious thought needs to be given to removing dissenters. Because if they go along with this what other rights would they be willing to put limits on?
 Same goes for the other side. 
  People aren't voting for the good of America anymore it seems. They're voting for extremists for their side,damn the constitution. 
. Pretty sad state of affairs we've found ourselves in actually.

I won't contradict your stance on the 2A / gun ownership here but let's be honest...if the federal GUBMINT went **** and started deploying Palantir guided drones to start hunting down dissenters your weapons wouldn't do jack **** lol

They literally just send remotely controlled bombs to your location (guided by satellites that constantly track your location courtesy of our surveillance apparatus)

Squatchman » 40 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

40 minutes ago

No. It's not.
It's an attack on the constitution. 
No different than losing any other right contained in the Constitution such as voting or freedom of speech.
  For example that Pretti dude that was shot by ICE. He believed in all of the Constitutional rights. Including the 2nd amendment.
  He got killed by scared little **** that don't. He should actually be the poster boy for gun advocates. He carried a gun while protesting. The guy was exercising 2 rights.
The right to self defense and the right to protest. He gave his life defending them.
  You're not going to get guns banned. That cat has left the bag. They're out there in the hands of criminals.I want to have something that can at least compete with whatever a criminal has if or when he shows up. That's going to be an assault style rifle that holds more than 10 rounds. Same goes for my every day carry gun. The police aren't going to protect you and that bad guy doesn't care about laws already. He ain't turning in his AR or AK because they're banned.                                                                            And when this "law" hits the Supreme Court on appeal and it will,it should be struck down unanimously. If not some serious thought needs to be given to removing dissenters. Because if they go along with this what other rights would they be willing to put limits on?
 Same goes for the other side. 
  People aren't voting for the good of America anymore it seems. They're voting for extremists for their side,damn the constitution. 
. Pretty sad state of affairs we've found ourselves in actually.

Pretti **** himself by not obliging to the most important and upfront rule when carrying…de-escalation…

 

Help me please....

what does this mean?


Dem congressional candidate charged with terrorist threats after pulling gun on government officials

https://nypost.com/2026/05/31/us-news/h ... officials/