LonJowett

You obviously didn't read the article. But Christian doctors might not be allowed to refuse to treat women who have had abortions because they disapprove of their lifestyle.

I resent fake Christians trying to make people think their desire to discriminate and make others second-class citizens is just part of their Christianity. I hope Christ has a special place in hell for those who use his name to spread their hate and contempt for others.

Anti-American? Those are weasel words.

No, it wouldn't work. They wouldn't be able to match the shooters' assault weapons, and they wouldn't have kevlar vests and body armour, and they wouldn't have the advantage of surprise that the shooter would have. The most likely result would be students getting shot by frustrated, underpaid teachers.

You're saying there is no way to make it more difficult for a psychopathic teenager to arm himself to the teeth so we should just let him do what he wants?

No, you answered nothing. That seems to be what you always do. Spew a bunch of gibberish about abortions and smart phones and how hypothetical questions are hypothetical, then say you responded and run away saying bye bye. Yes, making a bomb does not appear to be protected under the second amendment. Do you disagree with that? As per your response, do you think it's pointless to ban bomb-making because the bad guys don't follow the rules anyway?

How about another simple question that you won't answer? If an American created his own nuclear weapon, would it infringe his second amendment rights to take it away from him?

I knew you would try to avoid the question. That's why I used all caps. I'll try again to emphasize how determined you are to avoid answering. DO YOU FEEL THERE SHOULD BE ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEGREE OF WEAPONS ALLOWED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT? If yes, what is that limit? If no, then you are saying there is no point to even try and nobody would ever want nuclear weapons anyway and smart phones are watching us and what about abortion?

The school in Florida had an armed guard. It didn't work. That's just a ridiculous distraction to sell more guns.

Calling people names is never an argument. It just shows a lack of ability to discuss the issue. I would ask whether there are any weapons you feel should be restricted, but I don't think you've thought the issue through enough to provide a response. Perhaps an anecdote about Trudeau would make it seem like you know what you're talking about.

The question was based on a hypothetical scenario. Rather than choose to answer it, you decided to question why anyone would ask a hypothetical question. I will be more direct. Hal was honest enough to admit that he feels there should be some sort of limit under the second amendment, although he was unwilling to express why he felt that limit should come after weapons that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a minute. I will phrase it in a way that will be difficult for you to obfuscate: DO YOU FEEL THERE SHOULD BE ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEGREE OF WEAPONS ALLOWED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT? If yes, what is that limit? If no, then American jihadis with nuclear ambitions are okay to you? I look forward to your refusal to answer.

When the questions get too embarrassing to answer, it's always best to change the subject to Canada.

I'm more interested in what they can do as well, as well as what they can easily be adapted to do. Again, why do you draw the line after rifles that are capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a minute? (I find you usually have to ask a question about five times around here to get any kind of response, and then they just call you a troll for asking too much.)

Why do you draw the line after the AR-15? If it's "obvious" some should be banned, why not make that line those weapons like the AR-15 that (by design or through modification) are capable of discharging hundreds of rounds in a minute?

So you are saying there should be some sort of arbitrary limit set for the types of weapons allowed under the second amendment?

You're not answering the question again. How is your argument for inclusion of assault rifles under the second amendment different from an American jihadi arguing for the right to bear nuclear arms? It's a simple question about your own position that you should be able to answer.

Nukes don't kill people. People kill people. The second amendment was written before nuclear weapons and assault weapons existed. If we can apply it to future weapons technology like assault weapons, we can apply it to nukes. Again, please explain how your position differs from the argument that a well regulated American jihadist militia has the right to pursue nuclear arms technology. Don't just change the subject or make personal attacks like the other guy. Try to defend your position.

Exactly. Ultimately your position argues that American jihadists have the right to a nuclear militia. And changing the subject to Canada doesn't make that argument any less stupid. I don't think your Russian bot-masters are going to give you the coherent argument you are looking for though. Perhaps an anecdote about Trudeau will help you feel better about yourself.

No, never address. Still waiting. Can't find a coherent argument? Try changing the subject to Canada. The irrelevant statements about your "self" failed to distract from your inability to make an argument.

That is textbook cowering to avoid an argument. It even resorted to childish name-calling to bring home my point. So you're saying American jihadists have the right to nukes to form a self-regulating militia? I'll take your avoidance of the question as a sign you're waiting for your Russian bot-masters to give you some talking points so you can express your position clearly.

Funny how anyone who feels assault weapons should be protected by the second amendment can never make an argument why the second amendment doesn't apply to nukes. That's an argument they cower from and try desperately to avoid. Ask it and they start creating Twitter posts about how you're an actor being paid by Soros, because they know they're completely out of their depth.

Yes, it should be called a bubble maker or a daisy chain. I swear the arguments are getting stupider and stupider since the Russian bots started giving them their talking points.

What terrorists has Trudeau let in? What are you even talking about? Are you just making up unrelated anecdotes to change the subject from your willingness to maintain the status quo for future school shootings?

Cars are made to transport; guns are just made to kill. Nonsense doesn't makes sense just by repeating it over and over. Why are they trying to to prevent Iraq and North Korea from getting nukes? It's not the killing machines that kill, it's the people that are using them! If you don't let them have nukes, are you going to take away their cars next? Debating with right-wingers has become difficult since Obama drove them over the edge and they started babbling gibberish they read online as if it were an argument that makes sense.