Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant. ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ You're lying.
You were quoted verbatim.
Then post my real position.
What was the question?
Are these your words?*Huey » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant. ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.
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 » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant. ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.
Immediately after I piss in it.ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.
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.
I found it.
Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑I never asked for it...*Huey » Yesterday, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑ @Blackvegetable
The link as promised
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... ult_weapon]
It's irrelevant..
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.*Huey » Yesterday, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑I didn't say you did. But your education on this topic requires it and I said I would.Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑I never asked for it...*Huey » Yesterday, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑ @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
It's irrelevant..
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.
Concerning your real position I have no clue at this point. You are a revolving door of position.Blackvegetable » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑You're lying.*Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ 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 were quoted verbatim.Then post my real position.None of that states a REAL position
So the weapon was DESIGNED for the military, and modified for retail sale.Cedar » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ 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.
With your last ounce of strength you'd gum it in defiance?
Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑*Huey » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant. ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.Immediately after I piss in it.ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.
The question was answered.
I can't tell you that, KBK.Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ With your last ounce of strength you'd gum it in defiance?
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 timeBlackvegetable » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑Are these your words?*Huey » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Not showing I agreed that is irrelevant. ArmsLength you would be man enough to lie to my face like that.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 » 31 May 2025, 2:07 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.
Oh, you're gonna cut me...
Nope, you link to them?
I didn't say that.Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑Oh, you're gonna cut me...
You do all the tough talking, Shorty...I'm like the greek chorus.
Once you took a took a stand on what the bans have actually done that link became relevant. **** you, ya lying little bastard.Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑1. Not true.*Huey » Yesterday, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑ 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.
2. Itrelevant.
3. ****.
4. There are far more Sodomites. So what?
Sure, now can you admit the rifle the ban is about has never been used by the military?Blackvegetable » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ So the weapon was DESIGNED for the military, and modified for retail sale.
viewtopic.php?p=2751410#p2751410*Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ 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.