Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:16 am

Your recall sucks...

STFU ***, YOU STILL CAN'T DEFINE THE TERM WOMAN

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am

You lie about that, too.

You are running from CITATIONS.

Numbness, I gave you that citation.  Now tell ne the following:

1.  What is the name and model number of the weapon you are discussing?

2.  What years was the weapon standard combat issue for the military?

3.  Which of the two lists at the source of the citation (civilian or military) does the weapon appear on?

Once you HONESTLY answer those 3 very simply questions you will lose.  Well, you already lost. Notice NO ONE has ever said you were right in all the years you have been spewing this ****?

 

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:11 am

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:49 am

I'm sorry little liar, you have questions to answer. 

I gave you that source because I asked you to post the list the weapon was listed on.

But, since you can't name the weapon you can't answer that weapon.

No...I don't. 

The minute you stop lying about the established facts, this is over.

You aren't free to gainsay citations. You are always free to challenge what they assert, but the bar is much higher than "Is too!" and "But my rheumy eyes...."
 

 

Trybagain.  You have questions to answer.  If you can not name the weapon, post the model number of post what list it is on this over.  You are gonna Get the same truly every single **** time.

One family, multiple designs.  That is established fact.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:16 am

Your recall sucks...

The meltdown is here!


This is coming from a guy who will not admit William Lea Thomas is a man.  How can we believe anything he posts?

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:18 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:18 am

Trybagain.  You have questions to answer. P

I don't. 

You can't read.

There are no questions left to ask.

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:19 am

The meltdown is here!

 

That's evidence. 

Specifically, that you're a habitual liar.

You may now proceed to melt down.

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:19 am

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:16 am

Your recall sucks...

The meltdown is here!


This is coming from a guy who will not admit William Lea Thomas is a man.  How can we believe anything he posts?

 

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:21 am

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:19 am

The meltdown is here!


 

That's evidence. 

Specifically, that you're a habitual liar.

You may now proceed to melt down.

 

There is evidence that you don’t think Willian Leas Thomas is a man.

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am

You lie about that, too.

You are running from CITATIONS.

Numbness, I gave you that citation.  Now tell ne the following:

1.  What is the name and model number of the weapon you are discussing?

2.  What years was the weapon standard combat issue for the military?

3.  Which of the two lists at the source of the citation (civilian or military) does the weapon appear on?

Once you HONESTLY answer those 3 very simply questions you will lose.  Well, you already lost. Notice NO ONE has ever said you were right in all the years you have been spewing this ****?

 

 

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:18 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:18 am

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am

You lie about that, too.

You are running from CITATIONS.

Numbness, I gave you that citation.  Now tell ne the following:

1.  What is the name and model number of the weapon you are discussing?

2.  What years was the weapon standard combat issue for the military?

3.  Which of the two lists at the source of the citation (civilian or military) does the weapon appear on?

Once you HONESTLY answer those 3 very simply questions you will lose.  Well, you already lost. Notice NO ONE has ever said you were right in all the years you have been spewing this ****?


 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:11 am

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:49 am

I'm sorry little liar, you have questions to answer. 

I gave you that source because I asked you to post the list the weapon was listed on.

But, since you can't name the weapon you can't answer that weapon.

No...I don't. 

The minute you stop lying about the established facts, this is over.

You aren't free to gainsay citations. You are always free to challenge what they assert, but the bar is much higher than "Is too!" and "But my rheumy eyes...."
 


 

Trybagain.  You have questions to answer.  If you can not name the weapon, post the model number of post what list it is on this over.  You are gonna Get the same truly every single **** time.

One family, multiple designs.  That is established fact.

 

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:20 am

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:18 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:18 am

Trybagain.  You have questions to answer. P

I don't. 

You can't read.

There are no questions left to ask.

 

You have questions to answer.

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:25 am

You have questions to answer.

Why?

You can't make sense of what you insist is your own citation.


 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:27 am

Why?

You can't make sense of what you insist is your own citation.

BV HAS TO PLAY HIS *** LIBERAL SHILL GAMES ALL THE TIME

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am

You lie about that, too.

You are running from CITATIONS.

Numbness, I gave you that citation.  Now tell ne the following:

1.  What is the name and model number of the weapon you are discussing?

2.  What years was the weapon standard combat issue for the military?

3.  Which of the two lists at the source of the citation (civilian or military) does the weapon appear on?

Once you HONESTLY answer those 3 very simply questions you will lose.  Well, you already lost. Notice NO ONE has ever said you were right in all the years you have been spewing this ****?

 

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:27 am

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:25 am

You have questions to answer.

Why?

You can't make sense of what you insist is your own citation.


 

 

If you can not name the weapon, post the model number of post what list it is on this over.  You are gonna Get the same truly every single **** time.

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:34 am

If you can 

No, Tiny...

"Your" citation says you are an idiot.

"The design"  is singular. 

Until you acknowledge that fact, you're owed nothing.


And you've lost.

Again.

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:27 am

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:24 am

You lie about that, too.

You are running from CITATIONS.

Numbness, I gave you that citation.  Now tell ne the following:

1.  What is the name and model number of the weapon you are discussing?

2.  What years was the weapon standard combat issue for the military?

3.  Which of the two lists at the source of the citation (civilian or military) does the weapon appear on?

Once you HONESTLY answer those 3 very simply questions you will lose.  Well, you already lost. Notice NO ONE has ever said you were right in all the years you have been spewing this ****?

 

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:37 am

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:34 am

If you can 

No, Tiny...

"Your" citation says you are an idiot.

"The design"  is singular. 

Until you acknowledge that fact, you're owed nothing.


And you've lost.

Again.

 

If you can not name the weapon, post the model number of post what list it is on this over.  You are gonna Get the same truly every single **** time.

In order to prevent a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 from being readily converted for use with the select fire components, Colt changed a number of features. Parts changed include the lower receiver, bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, and safety/mode selector. The semi-automatic bolt carrier has a longer lightening slot to prevent the bolt's engagement with an automatic sear. Due to a decrease in mass the buffer spring is heavier. On the select fire version, the hammer has an extra spur which interacts with the additional auto-sear that holds it back until the bolt carrier group is fully in battery, when automatic fire is selected.[24] Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option.[25][better source needed] As designed by Colt the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select fire components

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-1 ... tyle_rifle

That is a different internal design.

Now, answer the questions.  

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:37 am

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 10:34 am

If you can 

No, Tiny...

"Your" citation says you are an idiot.

"The design"  is singular. 

Until you acknowledge that fact, you're owed nothing.


And you've lost.

Again.

 

 

Huey » 14 Oct 2020, 1:02 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 1:02 pm

Blackvegetable » 14 Oct 2020, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2020, 12:57 pm

No...that's "built", Reframy..

We are talking DESIGNED.

Yes, the weapons you buy in todays world as a civilian are DESIGNED specifically for civilian use.  If they weren't you could not buy them.  The only weapons you as a civilian can buy that were designed for modern battlefield use (automatics)  have to be made prior to 86, you have to go thru an anal probe of a background, cost thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to purchase, and the supply is very limited.  

This is all been posted for you before.
 

 

Here is an oldie but goodie.

And that means the only weapon you can be referring to is the Sporter, which was not designed as a weapon or war.
 

Huey » 04 Jan 2026, 11:02 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 11:02 am

Here is an oldie but goodie.

And that means the only weapon you can be referring to is the Sporter, which was not designed as a weapon or war.

Why do you  persist in citing yourself?

You're a moron 

Blackvegetable » 03 Jan 2026, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2026, 7:56 pm

I don't bother chasing you.

and yet you are, stalkie...
 

RebelGator » 04 Jan 2026, 7:49 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 7:49 am

Along with his ***, it seems he has also been kicked in the head numerous times. 

daily...
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 8:03 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 8:03 am

Very much so.

This is because I effortlessly taintpunt them across the Innertubes.

in your dreams...  

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 8:50 am

**** isn't worth reading.

^^^ **** ******...
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2026, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 9:42 am

I don't care about your retelling...

Don't waste our time with it.

run **** ******...RUN!

ROG62 » 04 Jan 2026, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2026, 1:26 pm

run?

Yes...run.


Now.

Ask me why.