Liberal Forum

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:49 am

No article was posted when you made your absurd comment.  And you left this:

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield

You're a liar.

That isn't a premise.


That either is or is not a fact.

You're a cretin, Tiny....

It's why everything takes so long.

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 8:51 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:51 am

Stop interpreting what I do.

Here is the link you lying SOB.

try again, liar.  Where is the article?  There is no article in that post.

 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:52 am

That isn't a premise.

That either is or is not a fact.

You're a cretin, Tiny....

It's why everything takes so long.

No, Cowardly Too Far, you are a **** liar and I just busted you.

Why every takes so long is because you run from your original comments, refuse to specify, and then you claim you are talking about something else.  

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:52 am

That isn't a premise.

That either is or is not a fact.

You're a cretin, Tiny....

It's why everything takes so long.

You said that was absurd.

And it is a fact.

Right here:

viewtopic.php?p=2090552#p2090552

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:52 am

@Blackvegetable  
There is no article in that statement nor did I post one concerning that prior to that.  You lined out everything but this:

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield

Plus, the overlying context of the thread is the debunking the myth that framers could only envision muskets so the 2A was about muskets only.

This comes close to THE PREMISE.

"If it had been "envisioned", GIVEN THAT THE 2nd AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, it should be "ownable" by the Individual."


Do you understand now?

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:55 am

You said that was absurd.

And it is a fact.

Right here:

viewtopic.php?p=2090552#p2090552

Did you just use a post from a month ago, to support your claim of what I posted TODAY?

 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 6:40 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:40 am

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 6:34 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:34 am

Ok.  You are saying Madison did not do that.  Here is one  of many links.

https://fee.org/articles/firearms-techn ... amendment/

Also run in WAPO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... amendment/

Why do you believe posting the same **** twice matters?

were unimagined in 1791.

In 1791, people surely imagined flying to the moon.

That doesn't grant you the right to an ICBM.

 

 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:55 am

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:52 am

That isn't a premise.

That either is or is not a fact.

You're a cretin, Tiny....

It's why everything takes so long.

No, Cowardly Too Far, you are a **** liar and I just busted you.

Why every takes so long is because you run from your original comments, refuse to specify, and then you claim you are talking about something else.  

 

Absolutely unreal....

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield so in addition civilians can afford them.  Plus, the overlying context of the thread is the debunking the myth that framers could only envision muskets so the 2A was about muskets only.

Many weapons of the 1800s were designed for the battlefield.  There was no civilian prohibition.

This is one remarkably stupid human being.

 

Son, I have been referencing both.  Note there is no article posted in the quote you are talking about.  That is from today.   You lied. 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:58 am

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:55 am

You said that was absurd.

And it is a fact.

Right here:

viewtopic.php?p=2090552#p2090552

Did you just use a post from a month ago, to support your claim of what I posted TODAY?

 

 

And that is the post I referenced earlier when I asked you what was absurd about it.

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 7:29 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 7:29 am

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:02 am

Absurd is, by definition, absurd.

Run from your words, coward

 

Last month no article was referenced.  Today, in your original post, no article was referenced.  So what is absurd about it?
 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:11 am

Son, I have been referencing both.  Note there is no article posted in the quote you are talking about.  That is from today.   You lied.

No, you cherry picked.

and then mixed and matched to suit your purpose.

I haven't contested "facts", I've contested The Premise...regardless of the source.

You don't understand what a "premise" is, so instead of addressing my comment in this morning's context, you lied and scrambled the posts.

 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:14 am

And that is the post I referenced earlier when I asked you what was absurd about it.

Last month no article was referenced.  Today, in your original post, no article was referenced.  So what is absurd about it?

Absurd about what?

Why lie about what I had posted this morning?

I've been consistent throughout the thread in what I have called absurd.

Your confusion is not my problem.

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 9:57 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:57 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:54 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 9:54 am

If you think there is another "context" by all means post it.

I could tell you to pound sand or read my sig...

But, in the interest of efficiency -

This is in the context of justifying the civilian possession of weaponry designed for use on the battlefield.

It is a patently absurd argument.
 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:19 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:05 am

Facts are facts.  Which is why you ignored it. 

You got anything on topic?

Many are the facts, however there is no RATIONAL argument for the promiscuous civilian distribution of weapons designed for combat.

 

 

 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:11 am

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield so in addition civilians can afford them.  Plus, the overlying context of the thread is the debunking the myth that framers could only envision muskets so the 2A was about muskets only.

Many weapons of the 1800s were designed for the battlefield.  There was no civilian prohibition.

This is one remarkably stupid human being.


 

Son, I have been referencing both.  Note there is no article posted in the quote you are talking about.  That is from today.   You lied. 

 

I can't make it much clearer than that...but then, yesterday you struggled with "YOUR".....

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 9:17 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:17 am

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:14 am

And that is the post I referenced earlier when I asked you what was absurd about it.

Last month no article was referenced.  Today, in your original post, no article was referenced.  So what is absurd about it?

Absurd about what?

Why lie about what I had posted this morning?

I've been consistent throughout the thread in what I have called absurd.

Your confusion is not my problem.

 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:11 am

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield so in addition civilians can afford them.  Plus, the overlying context of the thread is the debunking the myth that framers could only envision muskets so the 2A was about muskets only.

Many weapons of the 1800s were designed for the battlefield.  There was no civilian prohibition.

This is one remarkably stupid human being.

 Note there is no article posted in the quote you are talking about.  That is from today.   You lied.

 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am

Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield so in addition civilians can afford them.  Plus, the overlying context of the thread is the debunking the myth that framers could only envision muskets so the 2A was about muskets only.

Many weapons of the 1800s were designed for the battlefield.  There was no civilian prohibition.

This is one remarkably stupid human being.

I haven't lied about what you posted.  No article is linked or used in that post.  So why is that absurd?  Run little ******, run.
 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:20 am

I can't make it much clearer than that...but then, yesterday you struggled with "YOUR".....

 

This is in the context of justifying the civilian possession of weaponry designed for use on the battlefield.

No, Madison made it happen.  As you have been told before many weapons throughout history were designed for the battlefield. And as  you were told before no federal laws were implemented until 1934.  

And the context of the thread is to dispel the myth that the framers could not understand any weapon but muskets.  

And what I posted about Madison was not absurd in the context you want to discuss.  

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:25 am

No, Madison made it happen.  As you have been told before many weapons throughout history were designed for the battlefield. And as  you were told before no federal laws were implemented until 1934.  

And the context of the thread is to dispel the myth that the framers could not understand any weapon but muskets.  

And what I posted about Madison was not absurd in the context you want to discuss.
 

THIS IS NOT ABOUT MADISON.

IT IS ABOUT THE PREMISE.

 
 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 9:26 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:26 am

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:25 am

No, Madison made it happen.  As you have been told before many weapons throughout history were designed for the battlefield. And as  you were told before no federal laws were implemented until 1934.  

And the context of the thread is to dispel the myth that the framers could not understand any weapon but muskets.  

And what I posted about Madison was not absurd in the context you want to discuss.

 

THIS IS NOT ABOUT MADISON.

IT IS ABOUT THE PREMISE.

 
 

 

Meltdown Mary,

I discussed what you are claiming the premise is.

No, Madison made it happen.\ As you have been told before many weapons throughout history were designed for the battlefield. And as  you were told before no federal laws were implemented until 1934.  

And the context of the thread is to dispel the myth that the framers could not understand any weapon but muskets.  

And what I posted about Madison was not absurd in the context you want to discuss.
 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 8:34 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:34 am

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 8:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 8:30 am

I have already posted the premise of my post.  Deal with it or make your argument on your own.

It's not about "the premise of (your) post"...it's about the premise of your citation.

You don't even understand what that means.

 

THis is the premise of the citation:

Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.

As I told you earlier.  

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:28 am

Meltdown Mary,

I discussed what you are claiming the premise is.

No, Madison made it happen.\ As you have been told before many weapons throughout history were designed for the battlefield. And as  you were told before no federal laws were implemented until 1934.  

And the context of the thread is to dispel the myth that the framers could not understand any weapon but muskets.  

And what I posted about Madison was not absurd in the context you want to discuss.
 

 

I discussed what you are claiming the premise is.

I asserted the premise, **** moron..

This is so tedious because you're thicker than ****.

The premise shouldn't require an entire **** paragraph to explain.

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:00 am

I asserted the premise, **** moron..

This is so tedious because you're thicker than ****.

The premise shouldn't require an entire **** paragraph to explain.

No,I posted the premise of the article.  Check your notifications.  It is exactly what I said it was.

You are out of your league again.

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:04 am

No,I posted the premise of the article.  Check your notifications.  It is exactly what I said it was.

You are out of your league again.

You don't even understand what a premise IS...