Liberal Forum

RickyTavy » 14 Oct 2020, 11:22 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 11:22 am

I have.  You know this, because you've learned that even humiliation satisfies your need for my attention. For example, we have the debacle resulting from your mindless squawking of the assertion there really is no "gun show loophole" and your inability to understand what you read on the El Paso shooting.  But, this too was just another weak deflection from the dissection of yet another dumbassery you parroted.  How about we just skip ahead to where you bluster cyber-badassery.

Huey » 14 Oct 2020, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 11:19 am

A nuclear bomb is a weapon of mass destruction.  BUT, by federal law you could buy a tank, depending on your state and local laws.

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 11:24 am

And a melonballer is an "edged weapon"..

It's just Taxonomy......like "sporting rifle"

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 10:02 am

That's an evasion.

 @Isabel  

You nailed it......

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 10:02 am

That's an evasion.

 @Isabel  

You nailed it......

FOS » 14 Oct 2020, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 10:32 am

everything you are doing here is called pilpul. You are just trying to poison the well based on alleged technicalities.

Hueys point was not mysterious. More people are killed with knives than assault rifles.

RickyTavy » 14 Oct 2020, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 10:49 am

The more-people-are-killed-with-knives argument is a cliched false syllogism that is only parroted anymore by the most easily suckered Deplorables.  There are several things wrong with Hooey's squawking that you parroted.  These include the fact that Hooey isolated it to rifles when there are efforts to "control" all kinds of guns, and the fact that knives have many uses, while nobody ever uses a rifle or gun to slice a tomato. 

Rampant gun fetishism is just part of an irrational reaction seen in many Deplorables to the erosion of white male privilege.  In my dad's day, men were men.  They didn't need to pose and bluster.  They certainly didn't carry a big iron on their hip while picking up a gallon of milk at the grocery.  They didn't dress up to play army, hoping a bunch of wheezing, beer-bellied sissies would be intimidating.  They didn't all wear those vagina-pube beards.  Now, every victim-wannabe rightard on the planet is engaged in chronic over-compensation.  We can see this even in the way internet Deplorables favor macho avatars and use homosexual insults in the mistaken belief that will keep their closet doors locked.  In the end only sissy boys react with the kind of hysteria seen in the trump cult at the prospect of reasonable gun control.  They see common sense sanity as a threat to what is left of their shrinking penii.

Huey » 14 Oct 2020, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 11:25 am

Well, since the weapons you are discussing are not designed for military use they are semi automatic sports rifles.

Vegas » 14 Oct 2020, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:09 pm

By the way, I am counting your last reply to me as an evasion. Deliberately leaving out a my response is an evasion. So that's already one.

@Isabel  your mentor isn't off to great start here. LOL. Here is another evasion he is about to do. Watch this:

So veghead, are you or are you not going to first provide proof of me dodging questions from other members? I know the answer to this because I know how you narcissists do things. 

And evasion x 2 coming in 3...2...1...

 Blackvegetable
As CITATIONS consistently show, they WERE designed for combat, and later "modified"....or, as some wag once put it "heavily reengineered"...

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 11:17 am

Why not answer the original question?

"If I can buy an M-80, why can't I buy a nuclear weapon?( Strictly tactical, of course.) It's just another thing that goes BOOM!"

Huey » 14 Oct 2020, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 11:19 am

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 11:17 am

Why not answer the original question?

"If I can buy an M-80, why can't I buy a nuclear weapon?( Strictly tactical, of course.) It's just another thing that goes BOOM!"

A nuclear bomb is a weapon of mass destruction.  BUT, by federal law you could buy a tank, depending on your state and local laws.  

 

Huey » 14 Oct 2020, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:30 pm

The answer you are lying about.....

What is the largest number of people killed by someone wielding a knife?

Huey » 14 Oct 2020, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:28 pm

No, citations do not show that.  Citations show the weapons you fear ARE NOT designed for battlefield use.  They are specifically designed to NOT have battlefield us.

This is a weapon that was specifically designed for battlefield:


 
It is a replica of a Henry 45 Colt repeating rifle. 10 round fixed magazine.  Designed inn1860 as a 44 with the 45 coming in the 1870s. SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE BATTLEFIELD.

Using your criteria we have to ban it.

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:37 pm

The question in question.

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:38 pm

Then show me that citation.

Don't care about any of the rest of it.

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:38 pm

Then show me that citation.

Don't care about any of the rest of it.

Huey » 14 Oct 2020, 12:42 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:42 pm

I don’t care what you care about.  I am using your words.  Don’t run from them.

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:10 pm

As CITATIONS consistently show, they WERE designed for combat, and later "modified"....or, as some wag once put it "heavily reengineered"...

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:43 pm

If you were you'd post them...

For what "battlefield" was the 45 designed?