Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:20 pm

I see you running....like a sniveling little hooooooooeeeey bitch...

Just as predicted. My point proved. 

QED. 

 

Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:20 pm

Just as predicted. My point proved. 

QED.

Challenge.

Now!


 

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:59 pm

And by law, the congress, it was deemed an assault weapon sometime in then80s/90s.

and I already why they need a new definition.  Assault Rifle refers to a select fire weapon as you inadvertently showed.

Are you done yet?

A new definition?

You're a **** idiot.

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 2:03 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:03 pm

You've tried to insist that ATF defines it, now it is Congress.

The weapon is defined by the purpose for which it was designed.

Period.

Congress writes the laws, the ATF carries them out.  Now you are reaching.  I

Next, from the get go I said posted links from congress.  You said they were lying.

Yup, they are.  Congress codified semi auto sports rifles with exterior features that make them look military was assault WEAPONS because they are not by the long established definition, Assault RIFLES.

The NFAs codify what is a machine gun, which is for the most part any weapon (in this context) that fires on automatic or burst.

Military weapons like the one you posted are defined as assault RIFLE.  

I know your critical thinking skills are lacking but if you are correct and a semi auto sports rifle with exterior parts that make it look military please explain why congress and state legislatures have to codify what an assault weapon is.  They would have simply called it an assault RIFLE.

'nuff said.....

R. » wrote:

29 Jan 1970, 1:40 am

Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 1:08 pm

Yet, you can't prove either of this. You prefer to just get your *** kicked every time. 

Speaking of you being a coward: 
Challenge.
1. Same lie.

Ok.

I challenge you to come up with an instance where you anticipated an outcome....and to show your reasoning.

Now run to @Huey  , he needs you.
 

 

Nah, stick to the subject you are so desperately losing and lying about.

R. » wrote:

29 Jan 1970, 1:40 am

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 12:59 pm

And by law, the congress, it was deemed an assault weapon sometime in then80s/90s.

and I already why they need a new definition.  Assault Rifle refers to a select fire weapon as you inadvertently showed.

Are you done yet?

A new definition?

You're a **** idiot.

 

Same definition I have been using since the beginning.  Your spinning and reframing are not going to work.  I'll show you in a sec.

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 2:29 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:29 pm

Challenge.

Now!

FINALLY!!!!!  
@Cannonpointer  here it is. After 2+ years he has finally agreed to my challenge. 

Ok, are you good with modding it? Do you recall what it was. I will briefly explain if needed. 

Huey » 16 Dec 2023, 3:18 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2023, 3:18 pm

R.Suave » 16 Dec 2023, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2023, 3:09 pm

They're calling them "assault weapons"?

So there IS such a thing....

In the context of the gun control debate there really it isn't.  It became popular around 30 years ago because they could not really call them military style assault rifles.  SO they came up with a sexy name that would captivate and grab the attention of you gunophobes.

 

 

One

Huey » 16 Dec 2023, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2023, 4:00 pm

R.Suave » 16 Dec 2023, 3:44 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2023, 3:44 pm

In every context, Squiggly.

It was an assault weapon long before.

Cool.  Not a point of discussion but if you say so.

But the truth of the matter is I am correct.  It coined in the 80s which is not long before I said it became popular.

Do some research.  Go argue with Congress on how long the term has been around.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU08 ... -SD017.pdf

But on point the Illinois law does not ban all semi automatics.

Mic Drop….



 

 

And two....that is the link to congress.  You can stop lying any time now.

@R. Suave  

Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:38 pm

FINALLY!!!!!  
@Cannonpointer  here it is. After 2+ years he has finally agreed to my challenge. 

Ok, are you good with modding it? Do you recall what it was. I will briefly explain if needed.

I am good with modding it - but I warn you. He is cagey, cowardly, clever, and tricky. You might be biting off a beating.   

Refresh me on terms, sir, and name your second!
 
@R. Suave  - have you agreed to a challenge, and what are your understandings of its terms?

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:39 pm

One

And two....that is the link to congress.  You can stop lying any time now.

@R. Suave

Congress cannot define what already exists.


Just as ATF didn't
 

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:35 pm

Congress writes the laws, the ATF carries them out.  Now you are reaching.  I

Next, from the get go I said posted links from congress.  You said they were lying.

Yup, they are.  Congress codified semi auto sports rifles with exterior features that make them look military was assault WEAPONS because they are not by the long established definition, Assault RIFLES.

The NFAs codify what is a machine gun, which is for the most part any weapon (in this context) that fires on automatic or burst.

Military weapons like the one you posted are defined as assault RIFLE.  

I know your critical thinking skills are lacking but if you are correct and a semi auto sports rifle with exterior parts that make it look military please explain why congress and state legislatures have to codify what an assault weapon is.  They would have simply called it an assault RIFLE.

'nuff said.....

IT ALREADY EXISTED.

The only thing Congress has done is enable its proliferation.....by taking money from Pootie's whores.
 

Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:38 pm

FINALLY!!!!!  
@Cannonpointer  here it is. After 2+ years he has finally agreed to my challenge. 

Ok, are you good with modding it? Do you recall what it was. I will briefly explain if needed.

Don't **** yap..

Where is it?
 

Cannonpointer » 17 Dec 2023, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:41 pm

I am good with modding it - but I warn you. He is cagey, cowardly, clever, and tricky. You might be biting off a beating.   

Refresh me on terms, sir, and name your second!
 
@R. Suave  - have you agreed to a challenge, and what are your understandings of its terms?

He already agreed. I just quoted it. 

This must be under his BlackVegtable name. He doesn't have enough OPs under his new ID yet. Challenge: Mod is to randomly choose a page from our OP threads. Any page. Random. Mod is to review each page and determine which member has the most OPs where the author had his own intelligent thoughts. 

Stipulations:
1. Titles don't count.
2. Insults don't count. 
3. It's not about whether the individual thought's are right or wrong, it's about them having their own intelligent thoughts that weren't copy/pasted from the internet. 
4. Articles are fine, but there must be intelligent commentary about their own article. 

Stakes: It used to be a permanent ban. But I would like to change that...sort of. The loser must post and pin the following for a week:

I _______________ (loser's name) hereby acknowledge that I am _______________________(winner's name) little bitch. _________________ (winner's name) is far more intelligent than me, better than me, and just plain overall superior to me. If ___________________(winner's name) says jump. I ask how high. If ________________ (winner's name) says to clean his toilet with my toothbrush after taking a massive ****, then I must say "it would be honor, my majesty." 

If the loser does not post and pin this for a week immediately at the conclusion of the challenge, then he is to be permanently banned. 

 

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:58 pm

Don't **** yap..

Where is it?

Cannon is getting ready to mod it now. 

Hold your panties and make sure your ovaries don't get hurt during your beating. 

Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 3:00 pm

Cannon is getting ready to mod it now. 

Hold your panties and make sure your ovaries don't get hurt during your beating.

This doesn't require a mod.

It requires you to post an instance as described...

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 3:01 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 3:01 pm

This doesn't require a mod.

It requires you to post an instance as described...

You know what the challenge is. You know damn well. 

LOL! You are already stalling and trying to sneak your way out of this.         

R. » wrote:

29 Jan 1970, 1:40 am

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:39 pm

One

And two....that is the link to congress.  You can stop lying any time now.

@R. Suave

Congress cannot define what already exists.


Just as ATF didn't
 

 

And yet, they have.  As have a few states.  And the USSC upheld it.

R. » wrote:

29 Jan 1970, 1:40 am

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 2:35 pm

Congress writes the laws, the ATF carries them out.  Now you are reaching.  I

Next, from the get go I said posted links from congress.  You said they were lying.

Yup, they are.  Congress codified semi auto sports rifles with exterior features that make them look military was assault WEAPONS because they are not by the long established definition, Assault RIFLES.

The NFAs codify what is a machine gun, which is for the most part any weapon (in this context) that fires on automatic or burst.

Military weapons like the one you posted are defined as assault RIFLE.  

I know your critical thinking skills are lacking but if you are correct and a semi auto sports rifle with exterior parts that make it look military please explain why congress and state legislatures have to codify what an assault weapon is.  They would have simply called it an assault RIFLE.

'nuff said.....

IT ALREADY EXISTED.

The only thing Congress has done is enable its proliferation.....by taking money from Pootie's whores.
 

 

What congress is done is codify what an assault weapon is v. and assault rifle.

This is from the Justice Department link I gave:

The paper defines an "assault weapon" as a "civilian, semiautomatic version of a military weapon." 
Note the words civilian and semiautomatic.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... D086A6E283

And that is from the bill I posted earlier,  Start reading at that section.  Then get back to me.

Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 3:02 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 3:02 pm

You know what the challenge is. You know damn well. 

LOL! You are already stalling and trying to sneak your way out of this.       

Yes..

I told you what it is.

You lost yoir challenge, twice.

No need to do the same thing again.

Now post this instance where you didn't make an *** of yourself.
 

Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 3:03 pm

And yet, they have. As have a few states.  And the USSC upheld it.

What congress is done is codify what an assault weapon is v. and assault rifle.

This is from the Justice Department link I gave:

The paper defines an "assault weapon" as a "civilian, semiautomatic version of a military weapon." 
Note the words civilian and semiautomatic.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... D086A6E283

And that is from the bill I posted earlier,  Start reading at that section.  Then get back to me.

So what?

IT ALREADY EXISTED.

 

Huey » 16 Dec 2023, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2023, 1:11 pm

There are many states that have bans on these scary black firearms,

So in those states you can buy one of these:

I am often asked "Can I own an AR-15 in Massachusetts?" The answer is YES. You can own any rifle or shotgun, if it was manufactured before September 12, 1994. Any semi-automatic rifle that is not specifically named in the Assault Weapons Ban is legal. However, it may not have any more then two "evil features", such as a pistol grip, collapsible stock, removable magazine, flash hider, or bayonet mount. All rifles are subject to the Massachusetts 10-round limit, unless the magazines are pre-ban. All rifles must have a barrel longer then 16 inches, to avoid additional federal tax requirements as short-barreled rifles.

And this:


https://www.tds-us.com/smith-wesson-m-p ... k-f-12001/

They operate EXACTLY the same.  They just have some exterior features removed that have nothing to do with how the rifles works

@R. Suave  

And what happens when these assault weapons bans are in place the manufacturers remove some features to become ban compliant and you end with that which looks military and operates exactly the same as what you want banned.

Next, there are an estimated 20 million assault weapons in the country right now.  I say that is conservative because many gun owners will not answer these surveys.  The gov can't retroactively take the weapons so they will still be in circulation.  No different than the ban of 94.


 

R.Suave » 17 Dec 2023, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Dec 2023, 3:05 pm

Yes..

I told you what it is.

You lost yoir challenge, twice.

Enough of this lie. It's run it's course. Ok? This lie doesn't have currency. It never did. Like ever. 

Now you already agreed a few posts ago. You can't hide behind your lie anymore. 

You are finished. Buh-bye!

Let's do this @Cannonpointer