Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 2:54 pm

1) You NEVER offered a reason.

2) Already done....The question that lingers is whether your citation is relevant to the OP.

1.  And another lie…..

2.  The person who started the thread had no issue with it.   You can now explain what is absurd about  what Madison did.

Huey » 24 Aug 2022, 9:16 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 9:16 am

No challenges for you, liar.  That is why you bumped this thread yesterday, ya ******

I was just teasing, ******.

I know you aren't good for it.
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Aug 2022, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 9:49 am

I was just teasing, ******.

I know you aren't good for it.

I’ve never lost one.  But you have.

Huey » 24 Aug 2022, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 9:18 am

1.  And another lie…..

2.  The person who started the thread had no issue with it.   You can now explain what is absurd about  what Madison did.

1. Just touch on the highlights, lying little ****.

2. Post the rule.

Cretin.

Blackvegetable » 24 Aug 2022, 9:57 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 9:57 am

1. Just touch on the highlights, lying little ****.

2. Post the rule.

Cretin.

Actually, this is your rule.  YOU are making the demands, not me.  So post the rule.

Huey » 24 Aug 2022, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 9:59 am

Actually, this is your rule.  YOU are making the demands, not me.  So post the rule.

Looks like another rule.


**** idiot.
 

Huey » 24 Aug 2022, 9:50 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 9:50 am

I’ve never lost one.  But you have.

Why do you keep lying about that?

Oh...yea....that.
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Aug 2022, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 10:38 am

Looks like another rule.

**** idiot.

1.  I have already posted what makes the article on topic.  if I show you you take a month off.

2.  Read the title of the thread and the first paragraph of the OP.  Then read the title of the article and the first paragraph of the article.  Let me know what confuses you.



 

Blackvegetable » 24 Aug 2022, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 10:38 am

Why do you keep lying about that?

Oh...yea....that.

Go back to the thread and acknowledge your words.
 
 

Huey » 24 Aug 2022, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 10:42 am

1.  I have already posted what makes the article on topic.  if I show you you take a month off.

2.  Read the title of the thread and the first paragraph of the OP.  Then read the title of the article and the first paragraph of the article.  Let me know what confuses you.

Spare me.

Blackvegetable » 24 Aug 2022, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 11:15 am

Spare me.

1.  I have already posted what makes the article on topic.  if I show you you take a month off.

2.  Read the title of the thread and the first paragraph of the OP. 

Run lil coward, run.

Huey » 24 Aug 2022, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 11:15 am

1.  I have already posted what makes the article on topic.  if I show you you take a month off.

2.  Read the title of the thread and the first paragraph of the OP. 

Run lil coward, run.

Ah, the retelling.....

Blackvegetable » 24 Aug 2022, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 11:18 am

Ah, the retelling.....

If I show what is in it for me?  How long you gonna take off?  

Huey » 24 Aug 2022, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 11:21 am

If I show what is in it for me?  How long you gonna take off?

If I show what is in it for me?

Who cares?



You aren't good for it.

We know this.
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Aug 2022, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 11:25 am

Who cares?

You aren't good for it.

We know this.

I’m good for it.  I haven’t lost.

You cared.  But, I a, going to embarrass you anyway.  Hell you even commented on it.

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

23 Aug 2022, 9:34 am

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  

You lose.

Now compare that to the title of the thread and the OP.  Don’t lie and say you don’t care.

Huey » 24 Aug 2022, 11:31 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 11:31 am

@Blackvegetable  

You lose.

Now compare that to the title of the thread and the OP.  Don’t lie and say you don’t care.

No.....that is the introductory paragraph, as you have been told at least twice.

You're an idiot.
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Aug 2022, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 11:41 am

No.....that is the introductory paragraph, as you have been told at least twice.

You're an idiot.

Enough of your twists and turns.  Wait for it….

Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2022, 2:54 pm

1) You NEVER offered a reason.

2) Already done....The question that lingers is whether your citation is relevant to the OP.

Question was answered.  Why do you do this to yourself?

Huey » 24 Aug 2022, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2022, 11:43 am

Enough of your twists and turns.  Wait for it….

That's a matter of definition, not interpretation.

You're remarkably obtuse.