Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:46 am

Maryland has seen a decline in gun violence since the enactment of a series of laws aimed at curbing access to dangerous weapons.

 Officials particularly credit a series of federal, state and local restrictions imposed on gun kits in 2022 and 2023 with slowing online sales of untraceable firearms, requiring background and age checks of buyers and banning some kit sales in Maryland altogether.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme ... =122417400

Nothing to do with the OP.  But nice info   

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:39 am

Tiny,

You're having questions AND follow up questions answered.

And I CLEARLY disagree with your posts and challenge you to defend them.....but you're a dim ******.

PS.  Keyboard Komando, I have not asked any questions.  I posted facts.

Good Luck.

*Huey » 03 Jun 2025, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:50 am

PS.  Keyboard Komando, I have not asked any questions.  I posted facts.

Good Luck.

You cherry picking again, Runny?

*Huey » 03 Jun 2025, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:49 am

Nothing to do with the OP.  But nice info 

Tiny,

You've been struggling with the meaning of

I don't believe the Russia Russia Trump Hoax Hoax.

Don't presume....you're clearly an idiot.
 

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:51 am

You cherry picking again, Runny?

I haven’t asked you a question on this thread prior to initial comment.

Speaking of running……

Here are some bullet points on what I posted:

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.

 

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 11:53 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 11:53 am

Tiny,

You've been struggling with the meaning of

I don't believe the Russia Russia Trump Hoax Hoax.

Don't presume....you're clearly an idiot.

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.
 
 

*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?
 

Skans » 03 Jun 2025, 10:12 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 10:12 am

The Supreme Court will take up the issue.  But, not to only address the Maryland ban. It wants other state bans included in its decision. This means that other bans still need to make it through their court systems.  The conservative judges just don't want to shoot their wad off prematurely where other slave-states can re-tweak their laws to try and ban them again. 

I expect when the Supreme Court takes up the matter, it will uphold that all American Citizens have a constitutional right to own and shoot an AR-15.  Anyway, that's my prediction.  Wake me up when something actually happens.

Oh, something is happening. Imagine if the situation were reversed. and the LOWER courts were conservative, and the SCOTUS were liberal. Instead of celebratiing the lower courts ignoring precedent, little *** boy would be screeching about the threat to democracy.

So, what is happeningis hypocrisy, or beevee. 
 

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

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

There are far more Sodomites. So what?

So shooting **** with AR 15s is likely to occur, stupid. 
 
 

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

03 Jun 2025, 11:57 am

1. Not true. 

2. Itrelevant.

3. ****.

4. There are far more Sodomites. So what?

1.  It is true.  If you would go the link you always amd tell what list that rifle is in.

2.  Extremely relevant because what is banned is not operational.  It is still the same weapon internally.  The features DO NOT make the round any more or less lethal.

3.  That is the **** truth.  I posted one such ban compliant rifles for you with a link.  You don’t **** read much.  That’s why it is so e,barraging for you.

4.  So what?  I guess you don’t understand what “commonly used Weapon mean legally.

I’ll post the 1994 ban for you shortly.
 
 

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

03 Jun 2025, 12:03 pm

1.  It is true.  If you would go the link you always amd tell what list that rifle is in.

2.  Extremely relevant because what is banned is not operational.  It is still the same weapon internally.  The features DO NOT make the round any more or less lethal.

3.  That is the **** truth.  I posted one such ban compliant rifles for you with a link.  You don’t **** read much.  That’s why it is so e,barraging for you.

4.  So what?  I guess you don’t understand what “commonly used Weapon mean legally.

I’ll post the 1994 ban for you shortly.

1. Done. Debunked.

2. Rntirely irrelevant. 

3. You're a chronic liar..

4.irrelevant.

We're done here.
 

@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
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2025, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:01 pm

So shooting **** with AR 15s is likely to occur, stupid.

More likely to be fondling them.

*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..
 

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:06 pm

1. Done. Debunked.

2. Rntirely irrelevant. 

3. You're a chronic liar..

4.irrelevant.

We're done here.

I accept your surrender.  KBK, you posted no info no links to support your bullshi.  I did.  You lose.

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:08 pm

More likely to be fondling them.

What does that have to do with AR15s. fruitcake?

Weak sauce, that.
 
 

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 6:37 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 6:37 am

"[F]urther percolation is of little value when lower courts in the jurisdictions that ban AR-15s appear bent on distorting this court's Second Amendment precedents," he wrote. "I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right. Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain 'a second-class right.'"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-co ... eapon-ban/

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

DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER!

After applying that new framework to Maryland's ban, the 4th Circuit concluded last year that the assault weapons ban is constitutional. Focusing on the AR-15 in particular, the appeals court found that it is most useful in military service and can be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.

 It also rejected the challengers' contention that because the guns covered by Maryland's ban are commonly used, they are protected by the Constitution. Instead, the 4th Circuit said adopting this argument would mean that any dangerous weapon "could gain constitutional protection merely because it becomes popular before the government can sufficiently regulate it."

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

 
 

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 9:28 am

[F]urther percolation is of little value when lower courts in the jurisdictions that ban AR-15s appear bent on distorting this court's Second Amendment precedents," he wrote.

Free Ride is too modest to reference the abortion, of his authorship, to which he refers. Lower courts have made a sport of challenging its infantile reasoning.

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 9:23 am

Where's the Ammosexual caterwauling?

All you ever do is misrepresent how evolving actually happens daily here. You must loathe your time living mutually adapting in space by specific chromosomes nobody else will ever have.

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 6:37 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 6:37 am

"[F]urther percolation is of little value when lower courts in the jurisdictions that ban AR-15s appear bent on distorting this court's Second Amendment precedents," he wrote. "I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right. Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain 'a second-class right.'"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-co ... eapon-ban/

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

DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER!

After applying that new framework to Maryland's ban, the 4th Circuit concluded last year that the assault weapons ban is constitutional. Focusing on the AR-15 in particular, the appeals court found that it is most useful in military service and can be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.

 It also rejected the challengers' contention that because the guns covered by Maryland's ban are commonly used, they are protected by the Constitution. Instead, the 4th Circuit said adopting this argument would mean that any dangerous weapon "could gain constitutional protection merely because it becomes popular before the government can sufficiently regulate it."

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

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cCT0iVxpUBk
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2025, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 12:16 pm

What does that have to do with AR15s. fruitcake?

Weak sauce, that.

:rofl:   :rofl:   :rofl:  

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.