Liberal Forum

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 10:40 am

Moron, where exactly did I agree it is not relevant in a post where I am arguing it is relevant?  Keep running, ****** boy. Yo are on e ******* ****.

The Meltdown is ongoing...

And it isn't even noon EST.
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 10:35 am

What weapon does the citation tell you the air force bought.

You tell me.  But I can tell you it is not there Semi Automatic Sporter.  You can not walk into a gun shop and buy the weapon the AF bought by simply doing a 4473.

You have the link that proves that.  If you can't find it you where to go in my sig box.


 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 10:41 am

What followed was a lie, Tiny.

If your post is irrelevant to the OP, and premised on a lie, I feel free to stop reading.

Your style isn't compelling.

I accept your surrender.  You are now lying mode and calling everything irrelevant.

And there is no meltdown.  

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 10:43 am

The Meltdown is ongoing...

And it isn't even noon EST.

So you can't show exactly where in the entire quote I agreed it was irrelevant.  What lil bit you did post shows me agreeing you did not ask for the link and citation and then I successfully show how it is relevant.

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:34 am

Coward,

Just run.

It's what you do.

Shove an AR-15 up your *** and squeeze the trigger...repeat...

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 10:46 am

So you can't show exactly where in the entire quote I agreed it was irrelevant.  What lil bit you did post shows me agreeing you did not ask for the link and citation and then I successfully show how it is relevant.

It's unnecessary. 

You can't relate it to the OP, and lied about my position.

The OP provides further evidence in support of my REAL position, but you're getting chewed up on the facts so you must recast to retell.


 

.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 11:05 am

It's unnecessary. 

You can't relate it to the OP, and lied about my position.

The OP provides further evidence in support of my REAL position, but you're getting chewed up on the facts so you must recast to retell.

You are aware that there is a select fire AR-15 that the military did use, but they have never used the semi-auto AR-15 that the ban is about. So like you, the people passing these laws and the author of your article are uninformed.
 

Cedar » 04 Jun 2025, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 11:15 am

You are aware that there is a select fire AR-15 that the military did use, but they have never used the semi-auto AR-15 that the ban is about. So like you, the people passing these laws and the author of your article are uninformed.

STOP!

FFS.


 

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 10:45 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 10:45 am

I accept your surrender.  You are now lying mode and calling everything irrelevant.

And there is no meltdown.

It was as reflexive as it was epic.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 11:16 am

STOP!

FFS.

Things will never change if we don't educate the uninformed. I'm only doing my small part, you should feel smarter already.  
 

Cedar » 04 Jun 2025, 11:22 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 11:22 am

Things will never change if we don't educate the uninformed. I'm only doing my small part, you should feel smarter already.

Cheddy,

Which weapon did Colt modify "so as to make it not a machine gun"?
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 11:25 am

Cheddy,

Which weapon did Colt modify "so as to make it not a machine gun"?

Irrelevant, I  believe the OP was about the semi auto, not the select fire. The weapon you retards are trying to ban is the semi auto, which as Huey has told you numerous times is only a ban on cosmetics not on fully functioning semi auto rifles.

Not banned but more deadly than an AR-15...

https://www.browning.com/products/firea ... KdWha0VNG9

Cedar » 04 Jun 2025, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 11:40 am

Irrelevant, I  believe the OP was about the semi auto, not the select fire. The weapon you retards are trying to ban is the semi auto, which as Huey has told you numerous times is only a ban on cosmetics not on fully functioning semi auto rifles.

Not banned but more deadly than an AR-15...

https://www.browning.com/products/firea ... KdWha0VNG9

It is relevant...

Because the Air Force ordered it BEFORE it was designated M16.
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 11:05 am

It's unnecessary. 

You can't relate it to the OP, and lied about my position.

The OP provides further evidence in support of my REAL position, but you're getting chewed up on the facts so you must recast to retell.

Please show where I agreed it s not relevant.

You lied when I said you did.  And now you are spinning the **** out it.

I didn't talk about your position other than later I said you support these bans based solely appearance.  I then back up the fact that previous bans and proposed bans are all cosmetic.  

For once you lazy **** post your REAL position.  

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 11:54 am

Please show where I agreed it s not relevant.


 

I already quoted you.

You already quoted you.

If it has no bearing on the OP, it's a diversion.

If it is in response to something I've never said, it's irrelevant. 


Nod.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 11:52 am

It is relevant...

Because the Air Force ordered it BEFORE it was designated M16.

They ordered the select fire AR-15, not the semi auto that your premature ejaculation OP is talking about.
 

Cedar » 04 Jun 2025, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:04 pm

They ordered the select fire AR-15, not the semi auto that your premature ejaculation OP is talking about.

Now answer the question you were asked originally. 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:01 pm

I already quoted you.

You already quoted you.

If it has no bearing on the OP, it's a diversion.

If it is in response to something I've never said, it's irrelevant. 

Nod.

And I showed you lie.  

My response before you changed this post:

Here is your OP.

Here is the only portions that are your own thoughts:

A SECOND CLASS RIGHT?????!!!!!!!????

DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER!

and:

And if you don't think it can get any uglier for the Sporting Rifle crowd....

None of that states a REAL position.  Please do so when ready.  This is where your theatrics and grandstanding **** you every time. 

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:06 pm

And I showed you lie.  

My response before you changed this post:

Here is your OP.

Here is the only portions that are your own thoughts:

A SECOND CLASS RIGHT?????!!!!!!!????

DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER!

and:

And if you don't think it can get any uglier for the Sporting Rifle crowd....

None of that states a REAL position.  Please do so when ready.  This is where your theatrics and grandstanding **** you every time.

You're lying.

You were quoted verbatim.

None of that states a REAL position

Then post my real position.