Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 5:58 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 5:58 am

 Why don't you credit your source?

This is No Holds Barred.  Is there some rule requiring me to do so?
 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:07 am

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...

 

Repost.  Apparently I do.  

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:34 am

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.  

 

 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:07 am

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...

 

Apparently, you don't

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:34 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 9:34 am

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, 10:09 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:09 am

Repost.  Apparently I do.

It looks much like the introductory paragraph.

Is that a coincidence?
 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 10:12 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:12 am

Apparently, you don't

That is the **** citation, you moron.

Your job is to figure out the Premise.
 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:13 am

That is the **** citation, you moron.

Your job is to figure out the Premise.

I posted the premise TWICE.  Read it.

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 10:12 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:12 am

It looks much like the introductory paragraph.

Is that a coincidence?

That’s the premise.  
 
 

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

28 Jul 2022, 10:02 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.

Absurd is, by definition, absurd.


 

 

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield

Since you started digging old posts (to run from anther thread) it is time for you to explain why that is absurd.  You quoted that comment of mine this morning.

Your turn. 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:13 am

That is the **** citation, you moron.

Your job is to figure out the Premise.

No, your job is to explain why what I posted is absurd concerning Madison and respond to why you have an issue with the citation. 

You dug up at least two old comments on this thread to avoid the other thread.  Present your case.  My case is made.

 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:47 am

No, your job is to explain why what I posted is absurd concerning Madison and respond to why you have an issue with the citation. 

You dug up at least two old comments on this thread to avoid the other thread.  Present your case.  My case is made.

No, it is NOT...

My issue is with The Premise, as I have articulated it.

For some **** reason, you - a manifest imbecile - consider it a point of pride not to understand the term...

If you want to argue The Premise, feel free.

But first you must post your VSRoE...

 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 11:40 am

No, it is NOT...

My issue is with The Premise, as I have articulated it.

For some **** reason, you - a manifest imbecile - consider it a point of pride not to understand the term...

If you want to argue The Premise, feel free.

But first you must post your VSRoE...

Melt Down Mary,
 
I am not here to discuss what you think the premise is.  You made a comment that what Madison did was absurd and you bumped it today.

If your wish to support your absurd comment, feel free.  And you can take the comments I already made and discuss them according to your diversion.

Keep running.

 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 11:40 am

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:47 am

No, your job is to explain why what I posted is absurd concerning Madison and respond to why you have an issue with the citation. 

You dug up at least two old comments on this thread to avoid the other thread.  Present your case.  My case is made.

 

Lets evaluate your ****, Runner.

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

28 Jul 2022, 10:02 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.

Absurd is, by definition, absurd.

 

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield

Why is that absurd, Mary?  

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.

Here is where you bumped it TODAY.  Again, the articles you reference were not part of the thread.  So why is the comment absurd?  Remember, to avoid another thread you bumped this old thread.  So make your case.  Then we will get to your diversion, Control Freak. 
 
 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:20 am

That’s the premise.

No..

This is why you SAT scores are sealed, per order of your father.

Recall when you couldn't pull the reason DoJ sought to dismiss Flynn from the text?

It's kinda like that.

 
 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 6:50 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:50 am

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 6:48 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 6:48 am

Try to understand this.

It is THE PREMISE that is idiotic.

Nod.

Specify the premise.  Show you understand it.

The premise was that Madison wanted repeating rifles to be affordable for the common man so he ordered the armories to figure it out.  

Even going by your premise that the 2A was for militias you can’t have a militia if the citizens can’t afford a rifle.

 

I guess you missed this post as well.  

@Blackvegetable  

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 11:42 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 11:42 am

Melt Down Mary,
 
I am not here to discuss what you think the premise is.  You made a comment that what Madison did was absurd and you bumped it today.

If your wish to support your absurd comment, feel free.  And you can take the comments I already made and discuss them according to your diversion.

Keep running.

Have you made any effort to grasp the meaning of the word "premise"?

 

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 12:06 pm

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:20 am

That’s the premise.

No..

This is why you SAT scores are sealed, per order of your father.

Recall when you couldn't pull the reason DoJ sought to dismiss Flynn from the text?

It's kinda like that.

 
 

 

The comment you responded to last month and you bumped to today to divert was posted BEFORE the article was posted.

Why is the comment absurd?  NOt you understand weapons.  Your father knew you were a coward and kept your weak mind from having to serve. 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 11:53 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 11:53 am

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 11:40 am

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 10:47 am

 

 

Lets evaluate your ****, Runner.

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

28 Jul 2022, 10:02 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.

Absurd is, by definition, absurd.

James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield

Why is that absurd, Mary?  

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.

Here is where you bumped it TODAY.  Again, the articles you reference were not part of the thread.  So why is the comment absurd?  Remember, to avoid another thread you bumped this old thread.  So make your case.  Then we will get to your diversion, Control Freak.

@Blackvegetable  
 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 12:07 pm

I guess you missed this post as well.  

@Blackvegetable

The premise was that Madison wanted repeating rifles to be affordable for the common

That is NOT The Premise....

It is a fact used to support the argument.

The Premise is the notion that the individual right extends to anything imagined at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

It is absurd for reasons previously cited.

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 12:08 pm

Have you made any effort to grasp the meaning of the word "premise"?

Sorry, the premise of the article is not relevant to the comments you made because the citation you are ranting about was not posted until today.  Your comment was made a month ago and you bumped the comment today.  

You can't argue the premise of a citation that was not posted when you made your absurd comment or your comments this morning. 

Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 12:09 pm

@Blackvegetable

What have I already demonstrated by citing the Record?