Liberal Forum

Beekeeper » 15 May 2023, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 9:18 am

We know you do Professor PEDO!! Is that your "affirmative defense' when you finally get CAUGHT molesting 89 year old little boys??

Are there actually any 89 year old boys?   How is that a thing?
I molest no one. you stupid freak.

Beekeeper » 15 May 2023, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 9:18 am

We know you do Professor PEDO!! Is that your "affirmative defense' when you finally get CAUGHT molesting 89 year old little boys??

I am 17-18 years away from being 89. Most likely won't see that age. My Brain can resist any mind. Not so much a popular mindset determined to eliminate anyone capable of debunking their social narrative though.

Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 8:09 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 8:09 am

Duh!

Of course not, because slingshots are easy to make out of tree branches and bicycle inner tubes.
This is a very stupid question, that should make any sane person question your sanity.

Once you've shot a wrist rocket, a tree branch and inner tube just won't cut it...
 

Beekeeper » 15 May 2023, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 8:43 am

So you are saying that "arms" means slingshots now??

Do you actually have the capacity to READ AND COMPREHEND what the Constitution means by the word "ARMS"?? OR read what the Founders and writers meant by that word ARMS??

Trust me here. It AIN'T SLINGSHOTS OR BOW AND ARROWS!! OR KNIVES!!

the writers of the constitution were actually referring to what most every human is born with protruding from their shoulders, arms...and we are guaranteed that right to bear them...  

Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 9:16 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 9:16 am

Gibber, gibber, gibber.

quit drooling cubano...it's not a good look...

ROG62 » 15 May 2023, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 9:53 am

Once you've shot a wrist rocket, a tree branch and inner tube just won't cut it...

BUT WAIT!!

They have "arm braces" on them that makes them super extraordinary scary looking and NEED TO BE BANNED ASAP!!

Isn't that libtardothink for the definition of "assault" rifles or pistols or something like that??

ROG62 » 15 May 2023, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 9:53 am

Once you've shot a wrist rocket, a tree branch and inner tube just won't cut it...

Yeah, they are REALLY SCARY looking with those ARM BRACES on them.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zoRbC1OMQc&t=25s
 

When the government outlaws slingshots, let me know about it.

Squatchman » 15 May 2023, 5:43 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 5:43 am

  Are they covered by the 2nd amendment?
 Answer that one.

Well, since "arms" is defined as "weapons and ammunition" and weapon is defined as "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage" then, yes (technically)...they are covered by the 2nd Amendment.
 

ConsRule » 15 May 2023, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 11:01 am

Well, since "arms" is defined as "weapons and ammunition" and weapon is defined as "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage" then, yes (technically)...they are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Which is exactly what I said. At the time this country began, there were plenty of expert archers, lancers and hatchet flingers as well.
Also, it is just incredibly stupid to suggest that Democrats, or anyone, will try to ban slingshots of any sort.

Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 11:08 am

Which is exactly what I said. At the time this country began, there were plenty of expert archers, lancers and hatchet flingers as well.
Also, it is just incredibly stupid to suggest that Democrats, or anyone, will try to ban slingshots of any sort.

I didn't accuse you of saying they weren't.  I was responding to a question asked by someone else.  I also never said demoncraps were trying to ban slingshots.

More and more, you demonstrate you are one nugget short of a Happy Meal.
 

ConsRule » 15 May 2023, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 11:17 am

I didn't accuse you of saying they weren't.  I was responding to a question asked by someone else.  I also never said demoncraps were trying to ban slingshots.

More and more, you demonstrate you are one nugget short of a Happy Meal.

Xavier is clueless.     

ConsRule » 15 May 2023, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 11:17 am

I didn't accuse you of saying they weren't.  I was responding to a question asked by someone else.  I also never said demoncraps were trying to ban slingshots.

More and more, you demonstrate you are one nugget short of a Happy Meal.

I was responding to the title of this thread.
Which it seems you did not bother to read.
I said that no, a slingshot can be a weapon and therefore is legal under th 2nd amendment, and that suggesting that Democrats would consider banning it was stupid.

Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 11:21 am

I was responding to the title of this thread.
Which it seems you did not bother to read.
I said that no, a slingshot can be a weapon and therefore is legal under th 2nd amendment, and that suggesting that Democrats would consider banning it was stupid.
 

It doesn't bother me to read anything.  I'm not emotionally unstable like every liberal I have ever encountered.
 

But you can me stupid for agreeing with you that (a) slingshots are "arms" and therefore defended by the second amendment.

Beekeeper » 15 May 2023, 10:28 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 10:28 am

Yeah, they are REALLY SCARY looking with those ARM BRACES on them.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zoRbC1OMQc&t=25s

I acquired one from a friend's estate. He had about 40# of taconite pellets for ammo...while they appear to fly true, I can only imagine they look like mini knuckle ballers...  

Beekeeper » 15 May 2023, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 10:26 am

BUT WAIT!!

They have "arm braces" on them that makes them super extraordinary scary looking and NEED TO BE BANNED ASAP!!

Isn't that libtardothink for the definition of "assault" rifles or pistols or something like that??

Indeed, I do believe you are correct...
 

Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 8:17 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 8:17 am

A slingshot is a weapon that could be used for hunting or defense, so of course it would be covered.  But again, no one ever try to ban slingshots, just as they won't ban cars or knives.

It is a very stupid question.

England banned knives not too long after they pretty much banned guns, so.......

ROG62 » 15 May 2023, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 2:14 pm

I acquired one from a friend's estate. He had about 40# of taconite pellets for ammo...while they appear to fly true, I can only imagine they look like mini knuckle ballers...

Taconite is great ammo. I collect it when I see it. It will actually explode into tiny pieces if it hits a stone wall.

Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2023, 10:48 am

When the government outlaws slingshots, let me know about it.

willful destruction of other people's property or personal injury from the person using the sling shot caused personal injury since like a fired bullet missing the target will hit something else even falling to the ground 32'per second per second flying anywhere from 130 to 175 mph horizontally.

60mph covers 88' ps. now comes weight of projectile and mass times motion for impact pressure at soft tissue. Eye, temple, adam's apple.

Your imagination really doesn't exceed a talking point on your mind, does it? narrow band thinking, tunnel vision, one track, two rail, trained since birth mantra, or channeling past to govern outcomes of lifetimes just arriving to replace those creating the humanities corrupting each great great grandchild replacing its 4 previous generation gaps now..