Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:08 pm

You're lying.

You were quoted verbatim.

Then post my real position.

Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant.  ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:06 pm

Now answer the question you were asked originally.

What was the question?
 

Cedar » 04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm

What was the question?

Go fish.

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm

Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant.  ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.

Are these your words?

After years of spam, thousands of posts, BV finally admits he does not believe the Trump Campaign colluded with the Russians in 2016.

What a ******

 

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm

Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant.  ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.

ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.

Immediately after I piss in it.

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.
 

Why is the intellectual longitude of noon Greenwich Prime Meridian 0 degrees longitude and International dateline 180 degrees midnight? when dates on a calendar change at midnight and east and western hemispheres are defined by AM and PM relative time on the earth's rotating surface.

EST is 75% west of noon, not midnight same day, dawn to dusk. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha I see how humanity corrupted every generation gap in history since dawn of civilization began in the eastern intellectual hemisphere on a rotating planet perpetually balancing as this universal position every reproduction lived so far.

If midnight is NEW DAY EACH ROTATION, THEN EST WOULD PHYSICALLY BE LONGITUDE 255 to 270 DEGREES WEST OF THE INTERNATIONAL DATELINE. 75 - 90 degrees west of noon. Every reality created by this species is corrupting every generation gap on purpose from within every generation gap lived so far.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:11 pm

Go fish.

I found it.
They modified the select fire military rifle to a semi auto for civilian use. The semi auto has never been used by the military. You OP is about the semi auto version.

Face it all you are banning is ""scary" looking accessories, another feel good do nothing progressive bill.
 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:09 pm

*Huey » 03 Jun 2025, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:07 pm

@Blackvegetable  

The link as promised

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... ult_weapon]


 

I never asked for it...

It's irrelevant..

 

*Huey » 03 Jun 2025, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:26 pm

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:09 pm

*Huey » 03 Jun 2025, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:07 pm

@Blackvegetable  

The link as promised

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... ult_weapon]

 In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."[22] The term was repeated in several stories after the 2012 Aurora, Colorado sh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... c_features

I never asked for it...

It's irrelevant..

I didn't say you did.  But your education on this topic requires it and I said I would.

It is very relevant.  Your fear of these weapons is based on who is attracted to it by appearance.  So what happens when there is a ban, like in the 90s, manufactures build the same existing weapon without those features.  The weapon operates the same, is still mean and scary, and still attracts the same people you fear.

Here is your L.

There is nothing in that post saying I agree it is irrelevant, ya non reading ****.  Ivy League my ***.  And the reason it is relevant is because when I posted the what was actually banned in 1994 you said it was ****.  When I proved you were wrong you went all bat **** crazy liar on me.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:08 pm

*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.

Concerning your real position I have no clue at this point.  You are a revolving door of position.

Did you even read the post you just quoted?  Below is all you wrote:

That is all you wrote in the OP:

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....

 
 

Cedar » 04 Jun 2025, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:17 pm

I found it.
They modified the select fire military rifle to a semi auto for civilian use. The semi auto has never been used by the military. You OP is about the semi auto version.

Face it all you are banning is ""scary" looking accessories, another feel good do nothing progressive bill.

So the weapon was DESIGNED for the military, and modified for retail sale.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:13 pm

Immediately after I piss in it.

You would be dickies before any piss came out.

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:21 pm

You would be dickies before any piss came out.

With your last ounce of strength you'd gum it in defiance?

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:13 pm

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm

Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant.  ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.

ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.

Immediately after I piss in it.

 

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:09 pm

Not in the military list, 

Answer the question. 

 

The question was answered.
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:23 pm

With your last ounce of strength you'd gum it in defiance?

I can't tell you that, KBK.
 

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

04 Jun 2025, 12:12 pm

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:10 pm

Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant.  ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.

Are these your words?

After years of spam, thousands of posts, BV finally admits he does not believe the Trump Campaign colluded with the Russians in 2016.

What a ******

 

 

Nope, they are not anymore.  Again the disingenuous ****** uses edit and partial quotes with no Lins to try and make his point.  It takes less than a minute to kick his flabby *** each time

*Huey » 31 May 2025, 2:07 pm » wrote: ↑

31 May 2025, 2:07 pm

Edit after someone found his nuts:

Bv has finally found his nuts and clarified his original answer.  BV is still being fooled by the left and the MSM about Russia Russia Trump. I was wrong to think otherwise.  This could have done sooner if the arrogant prick simply clarified when asked.  But, we know he loves to grandstand and get theatrical.


EDIT:

Do you believe the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians during the 2016 campaign?

When BV finds his nuts and answers that question with a yes or no, if needed, this OP will be edited.
 

 

 

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:25 pm

I can't tell you that, KBK.

Oh, you're gonna cut me...

You do all the tough talking, Shorty...I'm like the greek chorus.
 

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:27 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:27 pm

Nope, they are not anymore.  

WHAT????????


 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:29 pm

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:27 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:27 pm

Nope, they are not anymore.  

WHAT????????


 

 

Nope, you link to them? 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:28 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:28 pm

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:25 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:25 pm

I can't tell you that, KBK.

Oh, you're gonna cut me...

You do all the tough talking, Shorty...I'm like the greek chorus.
 

 

I didn't say that. 
You are like the guy who had shot to prove he was a man and then decided he had options.  You have been a ****** ever since.  That is why you try to bully people anonymously online.  

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:57 am

*Huey » 03 Jun 2025, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:54 am

1.  It is a fact tThe AR 15 semi auto was never a military weapon.

2.  It is a fact that under the old nationwide ban, and states bans and proposals, only weapons manufactured after the date of enactment are affected.  You can still buy and sell those already in circulation.

3.  It is a fact the these bans and proposals ban exterior, visual and non operational parts.  You them them away and you are still left with a firearm capable of firing a 223/556.  Hence Ban Compliant weapons.

4.  It is a fact that there are over 20 million of these weapons in the US.

There ya have it folks.

1. Not true. 

2. Itrelevant.

3. ****.

4. There are far more Sodomites. So what?
 

 

Once you took a took a stand on what the bans have actually done that link became relevant.  **** you, ya lying little bastard.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2025, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:21 pm

So the weapon was DESIGNED for the military, and modified for retail sale.

Sure, now can you admit the rifle the ban is about has never been used by the military?

And can you admit that they're only banning accessories that don't affect the rifles function?
 

*Huey » 04 Jun 2025, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 12:31 pm

Nope, you link to them? 

I didn't say that. 
You are like the guy who had shot to prove he was a man and then decided he had options.  You have been a ****** ever since.  That is why you try to bully people anonymously online.

viewtopic.php?p=2751410#p2751410


You can see them.

Directly under your name.


Probably explain your use of the word "Edit" in the revised ****** out OP.