Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

You posted irrelevant crap based on a complete misrepresentation of my stand.

Again.

When given the opportunity to make a case within the past hour, you folded..

*Huey » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

That is what you always say when you lose.  

I made my case yesterday commenting on the specific comments in the OP.  You lose, ****.  As you do every time you try this topic.

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

Yesterday, 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.'"

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....

*Huey » Yesterday, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:47 am

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

Yesterday, 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/

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....

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.

The AR 15 Semi automatic was never used in military service.  It was designed for law enforcement and civilians.  Whoever wrote is an idiot and you are dumber for believing it.

The government had an opportunity to regulate back in 1964.  But, BATF determined it was not a NFA weapon and could sold to the public with the tax stamp process.

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

If there was a ban on a national level it will only ban NEW rifles.  There are at least 20 million of these weapons in circulation.  And as long as the weapon was manufactured BEFORE the ban went in place, like the 94 ban, you could own or sell it.

Also, the ban and proposed bans all deal with certain parts that do not improve function.  It is all visual.  If there was a ban you just strip away the mean scary parts an you still have a semi automatic that fires 223/556.  So you have accomplished nothing.

*Huey » Yesterday, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:06 am

For the gunophobes:

CA Ban Compliant AR:



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

 

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

*Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

That is what you always say when you lose.  

I made my case yesterday commenting on the specific comments in the OP.  You lose, ****.  As you do every time you try this topic.

No...you admitted it wasn't relevant...but proceeded because lie.

Now you vaguely retell.

 

*Huey » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

EDIT for character count.

Try again, BV.  Notice my commenters made in your OP.

*Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

I just wen thru all of my posts on this thread.  Your recalls.  I made no such admission.  I see me pointing on any number of posts that all of my comments were about comments in your OP.

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

*Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

@Blackvegetable  

This was posted to show that your bans will not stop the production of scary, mean military looking rifles that fire 223/556.

*Huey » Yesterday, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 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
 

 

*Huey » Yesterday, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:26 pm

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

Yesterday, 12:09 pm

*Huey » Yesterday, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 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 » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

*Huey » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

I just wen thru all of my posts on this thread.  Your recalls.  I made no such admission.  I see me pointing on any number of posts that all of my comments were about comments in your OP.

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.

 

 

Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Tell everyone why your tunic has a big "*" on it.

*Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Are you intentionally lying OR are your really this **** stupid?  That is not me agreeing you did not ask for the link.  The reason you had to edit the post and not use the link is I am arguing IT IS **** RELEVANT.

You are caught lying big ****.  Gotta luv it!

It is very relevant.

Your fear of these weapons is based on who is attracted to it by appearance. So what happens

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

How do we know it isn't a lie?

Your immediate meltdown. 

No...it is irrelevant. 

And your rationale is a lie.

*Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Go ahead and tell everyone why.  And why others are doing it.  It is because you will tag people in threads were they are not participating all day long.

You are participating in this thread.  I did not call into it ya lying bastard.

*Huey » 1 minute ago » wrote: ↑

1 minute ago

I am not melting down.  I am simply pointing out you got busted lying again and now you are going to try to turn it around.

I will post it again.

*Huey » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

*Huey » Yesterday, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 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
 


 

*Huey » Yesterday, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:26 pm

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

Yesterday, 12:09 pm

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 » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

24 minutes ago

*Huey » 33 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

33 minutes ago

I just wen thru all of my posts on this thread.  Your recalls.  I made no such admission.  I see me pointing on any number of posts that all of my comments were about comments in your OP.

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.

 


 

Are you intentionally lying OR are your really this **** stupid?  That is not me agreeing you did not ask for the link.  The reason you had to edit the post and not use the link is I am arguing IT IS **** RELEVANT.

You are caught lying big ****.  Gotta luv it!

 

*Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

@Blackvegetable  

There is some coding issue where I can't quote that last citation.

The AR 15s discussed in your citation that were sent to Vietnam are not the Sporter Semi Automatic civilian weapons.  Particularly until the Semi Automatic was not available until 1964.  

Next, your OP citation says the following:

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.

The Semi Automatic sports rifle being banned in Maryland was never in military service.

You are lying.  

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

I posted your words, verbatim.

Then you tried to spin them because you also posted other words.

Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

*Huey » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

I am not melting down.  I am simply pointing out you got busted lying again and now you are going to try to turn it around.

I will post it again.

I posted your words, verbatim.

Then you tried to spin them because you also posted other words.
 

 

*Huey » Yesterday, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:26 pm

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

Yesterday, 12:09 pm

*Huey » Yesterday, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 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.

 

*Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Yo posted part of my words verbatim and then lied about context.  I did not agree it was irrelevant.  I agreed you did not ask for the link that I promised.  The post is making the post it is relevant ya **** moron. 

1.  You are straight up lying because your recall sucks.

2.  You did not read the post completely.

3.  You are a **** retard.