Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 18 Jun 2022, 9:46 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2022, 9:46 pm

Does he have a different history to offer?

Or is it more likely that he is giving a sponsored rap?

No questions, dick sucker. 

Staplophobia » 18 Jun 2022, 9:41 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2022, 9:41 pm

It sure is. @Blackvegetable  claims he studied ellipses for 8 years and he has a Series 7 License, and a many more tall tales.
@Huey  will vouch that BV is ONE DUMB ****

He is a boy of modest endowments across the board - except at sucking *** dick.

He excels in that discipline. 

Cannonpointer » 19 Jun 2022, 3:41 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 3:41 pm

He is a boy of modest endowments across the board - except at sucking *** dick.

He excels in that discipline.

He thanks god for his legacy admission.  The only way he or Bush got into an Ivy League College.
 

FROM THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO
(Something all modern Americans should read)

"The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of men who wanted to be left alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love.

They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know, that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over.

The moment the men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives.
They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people's door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy... but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the men who just wanted to be left alone."



“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

I agree.  18 year olds should NOT be allowed to buy weapons that decapitate multiple victims at 1 time in a civilized society.

 

Spartan » 18 Jun 2022, 5:57 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jun 2022, 5:57 pm

Riddle me this, Batman:

How can a "right of the people" somehow NOT be a "right of the people"??  Why did Jefferson say it was "every American's right and duty to be at all times armed"?  The right of self-defense is considered one of the most fundamental rights of humanity.

How can you NOT understand that??

I don’t understand, cuz you are vague.

“the right of self defense” is almost meaningless without more context.  Self defense includes the right to kick a guy in the nuts?  Shoot him if he is threatening you?  Blow up his house?  What, exactly?

My best friends dad, when we were growing up had a safe bigger than a gym locker.  He kept some awesome firearms in there, including a mac 11 and a fully automatic uzi.  The question here is, did the founders intend for the “right to bear arms” have any limitations on what KIND of “arms”, they didn’t specify…

the OP could very well be correct.  If the founders did not have any qualms about citizens privately owning weaponry capable of ANY level of destruction, then we should all own nuclear weapons.  But we cannot, legally, due to the NPT of which the US is signatory.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on ... ar_Weapons

Nor can a civilian legally buy a fighter jet like the F22.
however, we can legally own tanks, guns of any caliber, etc.  

Changing technology calls for re-examining old laws from time to time.  As far as restrictions of WMD in the hands of civilians, I think we are at a good place right now.  Do you?

SJConspirator » 19 Jun 2022, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 8:45 pm

I don’t understand, cuz you are vague.

“the right of self defense” is almost meaningless without more context.  Self defense includes the right to kick a guy in the nuts?  Shoot him if he is threatening you?  Blow up his house?  What, exactly?

My best friends dad, when we were growing up had a safe bigger than a gym locker.  He kept some awesome firearms in there, including a mac 11 and a fully automatic uzi.  The question here is, did the founders intend for the “right to bear arms” have any limitations on what KIND of “arms”, they didn’t specify…

the OP could very well be correct.  If the founders did not have any qualms about citizens privately owning weaponry capable of ANY level of destruction, then we should all own nuclear weapons.  But we cannot, legally, due to the NPT of which the US is signatory.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on ... ar_Weapons

Nor can a civilian legally buy a fighter jet like the F22.
however, we can legally own tanks, guns of any caliber, etc.  

Changing technology calls for re-examining old laws from time to time.  As far as restrictions of WMD in the hands of civilians, I think we are at a good place right now.  Do you?

and all your specificity comes from statistical averages rounding off omitting enough percentage to sustain eternal doubt now is eternity on every intellectual plane of societal evolution.

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:51 am

An F22 is not classified as a firearm or arms in that sense.  

Maybe you should catch up on what you are trying to discuss, MENSA.  Come on, impress me.

Are you saying the F22 has no mounted Gatling gun?  Cuz it does, 20mm calibre.  As well as air to air missiles.


https://www.gd-ots.com/armaments/aircra ... stems/f22/

It is not legal for a civilian to own a F22.  Does that regulation make sense to you?
 

SJConspirator » 19 Jun 2022, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 8:45 pm

I don’t understand, cuz you are vague.

“the right of self defense” is almost meaningless without more context.  Self defense includes the right to kick a guy in the nuts?  Shoot him if he is threatening you?  Blow up his house?  What, exactly?

My best friends dad, when we were growing up had a safe bigger than a gym locker.  He kept some awesome firearms in there, including a mac 11 and a fully automatic uzi.  The question here is, did the founders intend for the “right to bear arms” have any limitations on what KIND of “arms”, they didn’t specify…

the OP could very well be correct.  If the founders did not have any qualms about citizens privately owning weaponry capable of ANY level of destruction, then we should all own nuclear weapons.  But we cannot, legally, due to the NPT of which the US is signatory.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on ... ar_Weapons

Nor can a civilian legally buy a fighter jet like the F22.
however, we can legally own tanks, guns of any caliber, etc.  

Changing technology calls for re-examining old laws from time to time.  As far as restrictions of WMD in the hands of civilians, I think we are at a good place right now.  Do you?

I don't feel I'm being "vague" at all.

The right of self-defense is exactly what it says: the right to defend yourself if you are attacked.  If we have a right to life then we have the right to defend that life, and by extension the right to possess the most effective means by which to conduct that defense.

The discussion of Nuclear Arms inevitably makes me sigh; because yes, the Constitution does protect "arms".  Sadly, we let the government do whatever it wanted to without challenge, when we should have demanded an honest and in depth discussion of the full breadth of the Second Amendment's guarantees once arms became as destructive as some modern ordnance has become.

In a discussion of the Founders, their intent is clearly illustrated in their writings.  Jefferson stated that he felt it was "every American's right and duty to be at all times armed."  They believed that the people themselves were part of the system of checks and balances, and if it came right down to it the idea that every American had access to access to equivalent armament to the average soldier.

As Tench Coxe so eloquently said: 

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

You say that "changing technology calls for re-examining old laws from time to time."  I say that while you might be right, the Constitution cannot be ignored simply because one finds it inconvenient.  If we are to place restrictions upon a right that "shall not be infringed", then a Constitutional Amendment becomes necessary IMHO.  Certainly, I don't think nuclear weapons should be in the hands of just anyone; but when it comes to small arms I do truly believe that all citizens do have the right to be armed, including with weapons such as the select-fire M4 that currently arms the majority of our troops.
 

supraTruth » 19 Jun 2022, 7:42 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 7:42 pm

I agree.  18 year olds should NOT be allowed to buy weapons that decapitate multiple victims at 1 time in a civilized society.

But this same dick sucker will attest to the validity of a 4 year old's gender claim. ^
 

SJConspirator » 19 Jun 2022, 8:50 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 8:50 pm

Are you saying the F22 has no mounted Gatling gun?  Cuz it does, 20mm calibre.  As well as air to air missiles.

https://www.gd-ots.com/armaments/aircra ... stems/f22/

It is not legal for a civilian to own a F22.  Does that regulation make sense to you?

They can have my F-22 when they pry my cold dead fingers off my joy stick. 



Ghchgkjk - I said, "joy stick."

Cannonpointer » 19 Jun 2022, 10:10 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 10:10 pm

But this same dick sucker will attest to the validity of a 4 year old's gender claim. ^

Why lie about EVERYTHING, Generational Pud?

Spartan » 19 Jun 2022, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 3:21 pm

I've read this whole thread, and I look at this comment and just shake my head.

Clearly, there are too many people who don't understand the term "asymmetrical warfare".  An armed populace, using asymmetrical warfare tactics, would bring a lot of harm down on even a modern military.  We've seen in Ukraine how an armed citizenry has been able to delay, disable, and destroy armor.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgencies successfully engaged and did damage to the most advanced military in the world.  One poster mocks the idea of engaging an F22 with a rifle... but a shot to that F22 pilot's head from a distance when he isn't actually flying his aircraft is just as effective.  Engaging soft targets with hit-and-run tactics, disappearing back into the populace and not staying in one place... hard to hit targets from the air when you don't know where they're coming from beforehand or where they went after.

Send in the military to go house to house... and semi-auto carbines like ARs and AKs will wreak havoc.  Which, of course, assumes that the military would even willingly engage in active combat against their own friends and neighbors.

In the end, people tell themselves AR-15s aren't relevant in modern warfare... because that's what they want to believe.

lets discuss strategy then. your idea of asymmetrical warfare requires your population greatly outnumbers your enemy population.

guess what, sherlock...you dont.

Spartan » 19 Jun 2022, 9:47 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 9:47 pm

I don't feel I'm being "vague" at all.

The right of self-defense is exactly what it says: the right to defend yourself if you are attacked.  If we have a right to life then we have the right to defend that life, and by extension the right to possess the most effective means by which to conduct that defense.

The discussion of Nuclear Arms inevitably makes me sigh; because yes, the Constitution does protect "arms".  Sadly, we let the government do whatever it wanted to without challenge, when we should have demanded an honest and in depth discussion of the full breadth of the Second Amendment's guarantees once arms became as destructive as some modern ordnance has become.

In a discussion of the Founders, their intent is clearly illustrated in their writings.  Jefferson stated that he felt it was "every American's right and duty to be at all times armed."  They believed that the people themselves were part of the system of checks and balances, and if it came right down to it the idea that every American had access to access to equivalent armament to the average soldier.

As Tench Coxe so eloquently said: 

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

You say that "changing technology calls for re-examining old laws from time to time."  I say that while you might be right, the Constitution cannot be ignored simply because one finds it inconvenient.  If we are to place restrictions upon a right that "shall not be infringed", then a Constitutional Amendment becomes necessary IMHO.  Certainly, I don't think nuclear weapons should be in the hands of just anyone; but when it comes to small arms I do truly believe that all citizens do have the right to be armed, including with weapons such as the select-fire M4 that currently arms the majority of our troops.

the constitution you love so much can be ignored by simply **** ignoring it.

it comes down to power.

and you and you ar15 didnt do **** for your power. accept it.

supraTruth » 19 Jun 2022, 11:30 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 11:30 pm

Why lie about EVERYTHING, Generational Pud?

All literal, figurative, relative, social truisms come from ethical hypothetical scenarios of how people would react as a society if now wasn't eternity and it has always been since each ancestor is physically limited to only evolving as mutually alive now.

Simple Genetic Compounding. SGC defeats NWO since SGC is kinetic evolving as displaced since conception and NWO is comparing what people have done believing now isn't eternity since dawn of civilization in this atmosphere.

How you like them apples? Just an ancestor "hunting good will". You have none.

SJConspirator » 19 Jun 2022, 8:50 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 8:50 pm

Are you saying the F22 has no mounted Gatling gun?  Cuz it does, 20mm calibre.  As well as air to air missiles.

https://www.gd-ots.com/armaments/aircra ... stems/f22/

It is not legal for a civilian to own a F22.  Does that regulation make sense to you?

if and when it is demilitarized you can own an F22.  

Huey » 20 Jun 2022, 7:34 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2022, 7:34 am

if and when it is demilitarized you can own an F22.  

Why don't they build a none military version? Leave out the weaponry makes it lighter, use a smaller engine and it will fly circles around the military version.

Pilots can play kamikaze pilots against the military version for their ideology and become immortal martyrs until extinction leaves nobody remembering who they were.

Sell them at a higher price than the military version also. Great profit margin.

Oh a failsafe design of making it smaller so it cannot be retrofitted with weaponry.

Staplophobia » 19 Jun 2022, 7:48 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2022, 7:48 pm

^^FASCINTED WITH CHILDREN THE DIRTY CHINK

Protective of the lives of thousands of children is not what a sick RED FLAG ALERT scumbag like U pretends it to be.

 
& I'm pinker than U, U sick lying racist.

 Tell that sick war criminal Pooty that I said   .

Blackvegetable » 17 Jun 2022, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 8:47 am

Explain why not machine gun, Sheilagh...

No questions, dick sucker.

Blackvegetable » 17 Jun 2022, 9:05 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2022, 9:05 am

For what "civilian" purpose can an Assault Rifle be used?

No questions, dick sucker.