Liberal Forum

*Huey » Today, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:06 am

For the gunophobes:

CA Ban Compliant AR:



https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/c ... r15/472134

 

Repost for the man who does not read his own thread:

@Blackvegetable  

Cannonpointer » 34 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

34 minutes ago

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.

I would be happy if every full citizen in the USofA was armed with 10 machine guns and 40,000 rounds of ammunition. 
 

Skans » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

I would be happy if every full citizen in the USofA was armed with 10 machine guns and 40,000 rounds of ammunition.

I'd be satisfied if they were amred with 22 pistols and had nut sacs. 

It isn't the gun that matters. It's the man - and we're **** well short on those. The best "real" men in america are *** - the only mother **** who refuse to cede their liberty without a fight. Whites puss out to tyranny faster than a fly landing on a liberal.
 
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:23 am

Where's the Ammosexual caterwauling?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5NGrkt-9nRM
 

Cannonpointer » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

I'd be satisfied if they were amred with 22 pistols and had nut sacs. 

It isn't the gun that matters. It's the man - and we're **** well short on those. The best "real" men in america are *** - the only mother **** who refuse to cede their liberty without a fight. Whites puss out to tyranny faster than a fly landing on a liberal.

The ***-bug done swept through all your blacks. Way more of them black-*** then there used to be. Must be something in that McD's Big Mac.

Me?  I'm as free as I wanna be.  If I were any free'er, I wouldn't have me a wife. Getting a wife is the single-most anti-freedom thing a man can ever do. The BATFE-FBI are wet-eared rookies compared to a woman when it comes to taking your freedom away.  Women invented the cell phone so they could enslave men.  If you even have a cell phone, you are a tagged slave.  If you keep it turned on, you are a tagged ****** slave.  If you actually answer the thing, you are a dead-man walking.  
 

Skans » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

The ***-bug done swept through all your blacks. Way more of them black-*** then there used to be. Must be something in that McD's Big Mac.

Me?  I'm as free as I wanna be.  If I were any free'er, I wouldn't have me a wife. Getting a wife is the single-most anti-freedom thing a man can ever do. The BATFE-FBI are wet-eared rookies compared to a woman when it comes to taking your freedom away.  Women invented the cell phone so they could enslave men.  If you even have a cell phone, you are a tagged slave.  If you keep it turned on, you are a tagged ****** slave.  If you actually answer the thing, you are a dead-man walking.

FTR, "blacks" is politically incorrect. You're supposed to refer to *** as "of-coloreds."

Unless you're online, hiding behind a keyboard. Then you can just say ***.
 
 
 

*Huey » Today, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:30 pm

Repost for the man who does not read his own thread:

@Blackvegetable

If they are going to use that silly-looking grip, they aught to make it so that the protruding piece is hollow and can be used to store an extra 30-round magazine. 
 

Cannonpointer » 34 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

34 minutes ago

FTR, "blacks" is politically incorrect. You're supposed to refer to *** as "of-coloreds."

Unless you're online, hiding behind a keyboard. Then you can just say ***.

I like some blacks - so, I'm morally obligated to throw some respect their way.  I save "***" for those blacks that act like ***. 
 

Skans » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

If they are going to use that silly-looking grip, they aught to make it so that the protruding piece is hollow and can be used to store an extra 30-round magazine.

I like your idea but then it wouldn't be CA ban compliant.  

Blackvegetable » Today, 6:37 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 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....

Hey Dairy Queer Dickhead....

You're a typical Pedo=Progressives....always looking for a way to take other people's rights away from them.

But his/her rights are always more important than everyone else's rights....but his rights generally involve degenerate ****

*Huey » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

I like your idea but then it wouldn't be CA ban compliant.

Why?  CA doesn't allow 30 round mags?  What does it allow?

 

Skans » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

*Huey » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

I like your idea but then it wouldn't be CA ban compliant.

Why?  CA doesn't allow 30 round mags?  What does it allow?

 

 

10 Rds.

nefarious101 » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Hey Dairy Queer Dickhead....

You're a typical Pedo=Progressives....always looking for a way to take other people's rights away from them.

But his/her rights are always more important than everyone else's rights....but his rights generally involve degenerate ****

But his/her rights are always more important than everyone else's rights....but his rights generally involve degenerate ****

I don't understand why he always gets his panties in snit one right and this particular non military weapon.  He is exercising his right NOT to buy one.

*Huey » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

10 Rds.

That's rough.   Ok, but you could still have 2 extra magazines holding 10 rounds each if you get rid of the pistol grip and install a cool looking full stock with mag holders.
 
Something like this, but make it a full thumb-hole stock and 3-slots for magazines:

 

*Huey » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

I don't understand why he always gets his panties in snit one right and this particular non military weapon.  He is exercising his right NOT to buy one.

BV the Dairy Queer Dickhead a Pedo=Progressive....his only focus is **** up other people's rights.

PhiloBeddo » Today, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:11 am

The only people who hate guns, want to control you. You can't control and armed society. History has proven that. Disarm them and you control them.

There are actually 2 elements that make someone a gun banner.  1) They hate guns and won't own one. 2) They hate others having something they can't have or don't have.  Being stuck with an Iphone-8 would infuriate these kinds of people. 

I might be the ownliest muthafuggen Army Trainee who ever qualified both left and right handed with the M16
I had no prior experience with firearms going into Basic...all I knew is that I was left handed.
During the weeks of practice that led up to the first round of qualifications..I was basically a 50 percent shooter which is barely passing.
20 out of 40 is what my score was after the first round a "Record Fire"...and I was very disappointed in myself.
I asked a Drill Sgt. if he had any idea why I wasn't doing better and he asked if I ever did a "dominant eye test".
I said..."No..I don't even know what that is"
10 seconds later we discovered that I should have been shooting "righty" all along.

With just a week's worth of practice going into the final round of Record Fire I shot 38 out of 40 [which was tied for high in the Company]....  
It didn't occur to me until just a couple years ago that I might have been the only Trainee that this happened to.
What happened on the rifle range made sense to me afterwards because as a ball player I was a "switch hitter" who had a better contact rate righthanded...but had more power batting lefthanded.

The Drill Sergeants were all fresh from tours of duty as Combat Infantry in Vietnam and they all had the same thing to say about the M-16........FULL AUTO was a badly overused and abused feature.
 
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:51 am

You cherry picking again, Runny?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fQ5xTJcyA5I
 

*Huey » Today, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:26 pm

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 

So, it was irrelevant...as I stated.

It is very relevant.  Your fear of these weapons is based on who is attracted to it by appearance

That is not the stand I have taken.

You persist in lying about it....ironic, since you also insist I don't take stands, except for vague ones.


So the rest of that **** isn't worth reading.

*Huey » Today, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:26 pm

Blackvegetable » Today, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:09 pm

*Huey » Today, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 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.

 

 

Blackvegetable » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

*Huey » Today, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:26 pm

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 

So, it was irrelevant...as I stated.

It is very relevant.  Your fear of these weapons is based on who is attracted to it by appearance

That is not the stand I have taken.

You persist in lying about it....ironic, since you also insist I don't take stands, except for vague ones.


So the rest of that **** isn't worth reading.

 

I take your response as a tacit admission that you do not care about function.  That you only care about appearance.  Remember that SCHV stay you have been vomiting for years?  Once you remove the cosmetics and visuals that make up the bans you still have a firearm that shoots the same **** SCHV **** round.

It is all about looks for you.  That is why your knee jerk reaction was to ban this firearm:



That is a 22.  It shoots 22 LR Rimfire.  But you yelled, BAN IT!  **** moron.