He made the argument that armed civilians would blow away innocents, implicitly contrasting that with his favored policy, which is armed police. When asked to provide examples of armed citizens doing so, he instead provided examples which discredited his own preference.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
The fact you dismiss that which you are arguing, when it is no longer convenient for you to argue it, makes your position hypocritical.
Why is it so hard for so many people like you to follow along with a discussion? I feel like I'm having to hold your hand right now.
I have some in boxes from the makers shipped to me that I have yet to use
but the turds would want to jail someone for merely owning ONE they didn't register. They want to ruin lives
its disgusting and it won't stop people intending to kill others
You see, I never said that you asked me to apologize to you, yet you imply that I did.
With your use of liberal/socialist debating tactics (which I've seen numerous times from your ilk, btw) there really is no point in wasting time with you.
You are dismissed.
-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada firstname.lastname@example.org
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.