Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2022, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:36 pm

Huey » 09 Jun 2022, 2:34 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:34 pm

If you had read my posts instead  of weaponizing strike thru you would have read where 5.56 is a common round for many different weapons.  

Like the DDM4 which is not a copy of the Colt AR 15.  Again, you prove your issue is with the ammunition, not the delivery tool. Wait for it.

There is no need to qualify the facts with your stream of ****.

The case is closed.

 

You just made an *** of yourself again.  The below weapon fires both 556 and 223. 

Huey » 09 Jun 2022, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:39 pm

You just made an *** of yourself again.  The below weapon fires both 556 and 223. 

You lost.

Again.

 

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2022, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:32 pm

Share that with someone who gives a ****.

I don't. 

Bring citations, or go play with yourself.

what is this use of "citations" all about? Looks like simple psychological class warfare lingo that goes along with a "we vs you an individual gender" mantra.

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2022, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:32 pm

Share that with someone who gives a ****.

I don't. 

Bring citations, or go play with yourself.

I need a citation for common knowledge? Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject matter before making a fool of yourself. Something tells me you'll continue flapping your uneducated cock holster, proving how little you really know.
 

Cedar » 09 Jun 2022, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:42 pm

I need a citation for common knowledge? Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject matter before making a fool of yourself. Something tells me you'll continue flapping your uneducated cock holster, proving how little you really know.

Stop right there..

It's where I stopped giving a ****.
 

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2022, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:38 pm

What ammo did the shooter use?

Just the facts.

We have already discussed the ammo used.  And your issue is with the ammo, not the gun. 

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2022, 2:40 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:40 pm

Huey » 09 Jun 2022, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:39 pm

You just made an *** of yourself again.  The below weapon fires both 556 and 223. 

You lost.

Again.

 

 

Far from it. Your issue is with the ammo, not the firearm.  I proved that with your posts.  

You are saying that we can have a Ruger Mini 14, which was not on the banned list from 1994 although it fires 5.56.  

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2022, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:45 pm

Stop right there..

It's where I stopped giving a ****.

This is one of my deer rifles (stock photo, mine is well used) should it be banned?
 

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2022, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:32 pm

Cedar » 09 Jun 2022, 2:29 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:29 pm

That's why I wouldn't buy a weapon from a manufacturer that doesn't know the difference, they're wrong as are you.

Share that with someone who gives a ****.

I don't. 

Bring citations, or go play with yourself.

 

I guess all of these weapons won't be banned using your criteria.  They are all under the category of rifles and none are named AR 15.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/rifles

​​​​​​​

None of this solves the problem of how we keep having school shootings. Especially when 2 of the victims were turned into pulp that couldn't be recognized.

Pepperluciophobia » 09 Jun 2022, 2:56 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:56 pm

I want to post a photo of my scary rifles and my cowboy boots. Would that be ok?

Sure, watcha workin' with?

ScottMon » 09 Jun 2022, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 3:04 pm

None of this solves the problem of how we keep having school shootings. Especially when 2 of the victims were turned into pulp that couldn't be recognized.

 

Neither is banning a scary looking rifle.

 

ScottMon » 09 Jun 2022, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 3:04 pm

None of this solves the problem of how we keep having school shootings. Especially when 2 of the victims were turned into pulp that couldn't be recognized.

means, motives, methods, opportunities, power, wealth, fame rewards for keeping people guessing how life works in real time. History of mayhem, madness, misery in the wake of sustaining intellectual humanity being more than homo sapiens adapting in the moment naturally here evolving as eternally separated in plain sight.

You say you don't know the reason as you sit here posting hypothetical standards as all anyone needs to know about. you promise better tomorrows and all your brain does is navigate being alive here as proportionately one of a kind.

I would wish you eternal hell in the after life but you manifested hell here now as eternally separated in reproductive order.

Huey » 09 Jun 2022, 2:59 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:59 pm

I guess all of these weapons won't be banned using your criteria.  They are all under the category of rifles and none are named AR 15.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/rifles

 

Don't care, Diverty.

Cedar » 09 Jun 2022, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 2:55 pm

This is one of my deer rifles (stock photo, mine is well used) should it be banned?

Start a thread.

Huey » 09 Jun 2022, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 3:09 pm

Neither is banning a scary looking rifle.

It's the look that sells it.

Pepperluciophobia » 09 Jun 2022, 3:18 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 3:18 pm

AR 47s AR 9 AR 10 Bolt action 762x39 bolt action 308
AKs AK pistols and Tony Lama Boots 

i don’t want to scare some of the retards.

Same you don't know how to navigate life without a reality in charge defining who you should have been since birth.

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2022, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 3:23 pm

Start a thread.

It's pertinent to the discussion on this thread, it's a simple yes or no question should hunting rifles be banned?
 

Cedar » 09 Jun 2022, 3:28 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 3:28 pm

It's pertinent to the discussion on this thread, it's a simple yes or no question should hunting rifles be banned?

No...it's just a **** distraction.
 

Blackvegetable » 09 Jun 2022, 3:30 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2022, 3:30 pm

No...it's just a **** distraction.

You can't answer without destroying your entire argument. Your concession is duly noted.